RE: exponential route prefix growth, was: Re: The Cidr Report

["Aaron Moreau-Cook" <aaronm () toothpick net>]

I'm tossing in my hat as a company who has recently multi-homed our
enterprise network. We would have preferred to receive a continous block,
/23 from ARIN. Unfortunatly they do not allocate smaller then a /20. We went
to our provider and tried to justify a /23. They rejected our claim, even
though our predicte growth puts us around 200 used IPs in a year. We ended
up getting only one /24. Then another upstream provider, quite large, forced
another /24 upon us. When we stated we didn't need/want it, they said they
could take it back but it was not standard practice; all DS3 customers get a
/24. Anyway... Think of all the other companies out there who get treated
like this?

Have you ever checked this URL out:

http://www.employees.org/~tbates/checkas.html, select "Print Full
Aggregation by AS Report." If you run this, almost 10,000 routes could be
aggregated. This is a 11% savings! I've ran across content providers who
have a /18, but announce them all as /24. That's 63 to many routes in my
table.

Minimum Savings:
- UUNet CA (816): 137
- AT&T (7018): 67
- UUNet (701): 66
- Sprint CA (3602): 56
- Qwest (209): 44
- Genuity (1): 40
- Level 3 (3356): 17

Has there ever been consideration to create a group/organization to monitor
these tables? Someone who can call these providers and enforce aggregation?

Just a thought? Perhaps ICANN, ARIN, or someone could establish a team
deticated to making sure the little guys don't get kicked out of the
multi-homed world.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> William Waites
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 4:48 PM
> To: kai () pac-rim net
> Cc: nanog () merit edu
> Subject: Re: exponential route prefix growth, was: Re: The Cidr Report
>
>
>
> Kai Schlichting <kai () pac-rim net> wrote:
>
> > What 'threshold' has triggered this sudden event, with routes going
> > from 60,000 to 90,000 in just 12 months? Multihoming becoming
> > fashionable? Dinky-rink providers getting multihomed, and for lack
>
> Fashionable or not, multihoming is a usefull and sound practice. The
> problem is that regulatory organizations (ex. ARIN) make it very
> difficult to do it properly, and so cause inefficient use of address
> space and routing table bloat.
>
> -w