|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: wait a minute here
> > 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 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|