North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: multi-homing fixes

  • From: David Schwartz
  • Date: Tue Aug 28 03:17:35 2001

Patrick Greenwell:

> None of course.
> The question is would you honor microallocations from a RIR if they
> said "we have designated this particular space for microallocations, would
> you please accept routes for these netblocks with these prefixes?"

	That's what this discussion was about, until the right to have it was
questioned. (That's what the 'who decides' questions are about, aren't
they?) ARIN could decide to issue /32's to dialup customers so they could
change providers without renumbering and it would do no good since nobody
would carry those routes.

	Providers generally filter on allocation boundaries (or are more generous)
because they trust the RIRs to set sane allocation policies. It would be a
waste of IP space and harm the net as a whole if RIRs adopted a
microallocation policy that was too generous and resulted in allocating
non-routable IP space.

	Hence the desire to discuss amount network operators what a reasonable
microallocation policy would look like. This is why comments like:

> Please explain why the "basement dual-homer" should not have the same
> right to diversity as the "major services."
> And please, be specific.

	Don't make any sense. That was my point in replying to you. There is no
right to a route in my router. If you want a route in my router, you better
find out what routes I'm willing to carry and under what terms.