nanog mailing list archives
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
From: Eric Kozowski <kozowski () structured net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 17:41:28 -0800
If you convince the registries to allocate no longer prefix than an /18 or a mix of lengths up to say /19 or /20 (such that no more than 1000ish are allocated) to ISP's or multihomed companies, and then require that the announcement must match the allocated block, you can guarantee that the routing table will not exceed the 1024 per /8. Then, some of you will ask how to enforce this. Once every so often, you dump the BGP routing tables from strategic routers. If you see any non-matching prefixes, you send an email to the network coordinator for the allocated block giving them a set amount of time to clean it up. Any routes which are not cleaned up by the deadline are added to a filter list which could be carried on routers. This method would have (at least) the following advantages (or disadvantages, from your particular viewpoint): 1) You could reasonably assure that the number of prefixes in an /8 would match what was allocated. 2) Because of 1, if you get the registries to set their allocation policies such that no more than 1024 (or the target number) blocks are allocated per /8, you can guarantee that the number of routes in an /8 is not too far out of wack with the target. 3) You can give those people moving providers a grace period to renumber, say 30 days. Essentially, the time given to clean up the routing tables. This would be a side effect of the "you have 30 days to fix the routing tables or else". 4) You eliminate the wasted space of addresses with prefixes longer than /18 being allocated.
An excellent, well thought out proposal. I like it. Eric -- Eric Kozowski Structured Network Systems, Inc. kozowski () structured net Better, Cheaper, Faster -- pick any two. (503)656-3530 Voice "Providing High Quality, Reliable Internet Service" (800)881-0962 Voice 56k to DS1
Current thread:
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations, (continued)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Paolo Bevilacqua (Jan 27)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Alex.Bligh (Jan 29)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Sean Doran (Jan 26)
- Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Daniel Karrenberg (Jan 26)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Peter Galbavy (Jan 29)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Michael Dillon (Jan 29)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Peter Galbavy (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Peter Galbavy (Jan 29)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations alague (Jan 26)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations William Allen Simpson (Jan 26)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Joel M Snyder, writing fool (Jan 27)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Eric Kozowski (Jan 26)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Vincent J. Bono (Jan 26)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Vadim Antonov (Jan 26)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Tony Li (Jan 26)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Forrest W. Christian (Jan 26)
- The World Responds to a Non Announcement Alan Hannan (Jan 26)
- Re: The World Responds to a Non Announcement Henry Clark (Jan 27)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations George Herbert (Jan 26)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Dorian Kim (Jan 26)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations George Herbert (Jan 26)