Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
On Thu, 25 Jan 1996 16:49:48 -0800 you said:
We've got a basic conflict between "smaller" and "better", whose resolution will require (in the absense of really good renumbering technology) constraining our insistance on efficient address utilization by measuring the effect this has on routing tables. We need to get some quantitative goals assigned to this so we can measure what is "good" and "bad". I'd (again) suggest the following:
A /19 in Amsterdam makes sense as a maximum allocation. A /19 in Uganda doesn't. I think due to different geographics we need to realize that allocation policy has to be different depending on where you are. Hank
That's too simplistic. A /19 in the Netherlands may well make sense. In the UK it would be far too small, for ANY of our registries. We can't argue for non-uniform policies ("Uganda has far smaller requirement than the Netherlands") on the one hand and uniform ones ("we have to be seen to be even handed") on the other hand simultaneously. Driving the argument from more than one set of conflicting goals at once is obviously going to lead to difficulties. If the overriding goal is to eke out IPv4's useful lifespan, a fuzzy goal, that's sure to result in fuzzy guidelines rather than strict rules. Here's a suggestion for one simple rule. "Where delegating address space to a provider registry, a) never delegate a block smaller than any existing PA block already delegated, and b) once 3 such blocks are delegated, always delegate a block at least 4 times bigger". This will allow Uganda to grow to the size of the Netherlands, and the Netherlands to grow to the size of the UK, and the UK to grow to the size of the USA without changing the guidelines and without requiring all registries under one delegating registry to be at the same level of Internet size and growth rate. On Jan 26, 8:34am, Hank Nussbacher wrote: } Subject: Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations } On Thu, 25 Jan 1996 16:49:48 -0800 you said: } >We've got a basic conflict between "smaller" and "better", whose resolution } >will require (in the absense of really good renumbering technology) } >constraining our insistance on efficient address utilization by measuring } >the effect this has on routing tables. We need to get some quantitative } >goals assigned to this so we can measure what is "good" and "bad". I'd } >(again) suggest the following: } } A /19 in Amsterdam makes sense as a maximum allocation. A /19 in Uganda } doesn't. I think due to different geographics we need to realize } that allocation policy has to be different depending on where you are. } } Hank }-- End of excerpt from Hank Nussbacher -- Ronald Khoo <ronald@demon.net> +44-181-371-1000 FAX +44-181-371-3750
Ronald Khoo <ronald@office.demon.net> writes:
Here's a suggestion for one simple rule. "Where delegating address space to a provider registry, a) never delegate a block smaller than any existing PA block already delegated, and b) once 3 such blocks are delegated, always delegate a block at least 4 times bigger".
While sounding fine in general, this assumes ever increasing growth of ISPs. An assumption easily proven invalid by counterexample. Daniel
You're trying to achieve a perfect policy that will work for all time when what we need is something to eke out IPv4 for the rest of its natural life. By the time enough of your postulated ISPs have grown big enough AND THEN shrunk enough for this to matter in any practical sense, IPv4 will have become mostly static, and all of us here will have retired from active Internet Politics. I hope. On Jan 26, 12:59pm, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: } Subject: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations } } > Ronald Khoo <ronald@office.demon.net> writes: } } > Here's a suggestion for one simple rule. "Where delegating address space } > to a provider registry, a) never delegate a block smaller than any } > existing PA block already delegated, and b) once 3 such blocks are } > delegated, always delegate a block at least 4 times bigger". } } While sounding fine in general, this assumes ever increasing growth } of ISPs. An assumption easily proven invalid by counterexample. } } Daniel }-- End of excerpt from Daniel Karrenberg -- Ronald Khoo <ronald@demon.net> +44-181-371-1000 FAX +44-181-371-3750
Ronald Khoo <ronald@office.demon.net> writes: You're trying to achieve a perfect policy that will work for all time when what we need is something to eke out IPv4 for the rest of its natural life.
I am not trying to achieve a perfect policy. I am an engineer both by training and preference, not a policymaker. What I am trying to do is to discuss proposals for policies which look simple but break badly on already existing cases.
By the time enough of your postulated ISPs have grown big enough AND THEN shrunk enough for this to matter in any practical sense, IPv4 will have become mostly static, and all of us here will have retired from active Internet Politics. I hope.
We are talking about real ISPs. If you check the address space usage history of European local IRs, you will see that the growth in address space usage of some has flattened a lot (I was not talking about shrinking yet). Look in the area of national academic research networks. Your simplistic scheme, if cast in stone, would do the very wrong things for those. Try again Daniel
Hank Nussbacher <HANK@VM.TAU.AC.IL> writes:
A /19 in Amsterdam makes sense as a maximum allocation. A /19 in Uganda doesn't. I think due to different geographics we need to realize that allocation policy has to be different depending on where you are.
Hank, you miss the point. It is *untenable* for the regional registry to get into discussions about the size of the *initial* allocation. Therefore a local IR in Uganda choosing to be served by the NCC will be allocated a /19, no questions asked. The expectation is that they will not need further allocations for a long time. But we have wasted a maximum of 8K addresses. Once they need another allocation we will know their usage rate, i.e. how long it took them to assign the first /19 and hence will have a much more objective means to determine the size of their next allocation. For clarification: One *big* difference between the ItnerNIC and us is that we ask a fee for registration services which discourages spurious requests from individuals and/or very small providers. Daniel
participants (3)
-
Daniel Karrenberg -
Hank Nussbacher -
Ronald Khoo