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 11:13:41 2001

> One could argue that the RIRs are wasting address space by allocating on
> arbitrary boundaries, e.g., /20s, instead of allocating according to
> documented requirements.

	If someone were to argue that, someone could reply that unless people
cheat, no IP address space is wasted because the registries still only
allocate based upon demonstrated need. One could even argue that a smaller
allocation policy saves IP space because it stops people from cheating by
asking for more IP space than they need.

> One could also argue that the "sane" allocation policies of the RIRs have
> resulted in ISPs not being forced to figure out how to apply effective
> mechanisms to limit route prefix growth and as a direct result created a
> tragedy of the commons in the DFZ.

	I'm not sure I believe that this tragedy of the commons exists where people
route on allocation boundaries. If I make Sprint carry an extra route just
for my little network, that helps all Sprint customers reach my little
network. I may not have many hosts, but Sprint has many, and each of those
reach my just a bit better. A distinct route for a distinct network of at
least some minimal value doesn't create a tragedy of the commons. Where you
do have a tragedy of the commons is where people place routes without
technical justification. A sane microallocation policy shouldn't exacerbate

	In any event, historically the dog has wagged the tail and the tail has
wagged the dog.