Re: wait a minute here

[Jim Van Baalen <vansax () atmnet net>]

> Someone just wrote me and said:
>
> > I would be happy to remove a lot of out /24's if the NIC would allocate a
> > larger than /32 to renumber into. The NIC does not thing this is as
> > important.
>
> According to what I know of InterNIC's policies, they will be glad to trade
> aggregated address space for unaggregated space, _in_roughly_equal_parts_,
> and assuming that you have efficiently used your old space.
>
> It's not that InterNIC doesn't consider this important -- rather than they
> are not in the routing business and the routability of addresses is not one
> of the criteria they can look at when making allocations.

I don't think this is particularly consistent with what the NIC folks said
at the last NANOG. I thought they said that they turn away any request for
less than a /19 (32 class Cs) and that although they can't legally justify 
this it is not hard to enforce because it is consistent with Sprint's filters.

> So don't put it to them in terms of routability, just SWIP your suballocat-
> ions and write a nice polite letter showing how some parts of the world will
> be better off and no part of the world will be worse off if prefixes X and Y
> are returned to the pool in exchange for prefix Z (of size ~X + ~Y).

Even though routabilty is not the NIC's problem, they have used routability
to define policy.

Jim
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -