|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: BGP Question - how do work around pigheaded ISPs
In the referenced message, Craig A. Huegen said: > > On Sat, Feb 10, 2001 at 06:53:41AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > ==> > ==>>> Return the 172.16.0.0/16 block to the registry (ARIN, APNIC, RIPE or if > ==>>> no one else IANA) and apply for multiple appropriately sized CIDR blocks > ==>>> under the current registry allocation guidelines. > ==>> While I fully agree with this approach to deal with the issues mentioned, > ==>> it will only exhaust the new address space more quickly. Why should we > ==>> give up on 128/2? > ==> > ==>because when the registries have different allocation policies in 128/2, > ==>the isps will follow. just as we did in old A space. > > That doesn't address the point -- the point is that these ISP's are forcing > the exchange of these blocks for new, previously unallocated space, and > leaving holes in the old 128/2 space. These ISP's are massively > contributing to the depletion of immediately available address space. Returning a /16 which the organization is not entirely using for a smaller block seems to be anything other than depletion. Perhaps I've misread Dani's original message, but it appeared that the /16 is not being completely used. > Why not adopt a reasonable policy to accept up to /20's or up to /19's in > the old B space so that organizations who already have these blocks can > use them? Most people who filter feel that filtering on registry boundaries is reasonable. There are people who feel that their version of reasonable is more reasonable. What makes /32 less reasonable than /20? If one filters on registry boundaries, the only time you don't have access to an entity is when they are not announcing the allocation they have been assigned. > /cah
|