|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: What is the limit? (was RE: multi-homing fixes)
APNICs approach (FYI): Hi James, Thanks for your mail and questions. Answers in-line below. At 07:08 PM 29/08/2001 +1000, James Spenceley wrote: >http://www.apnic.net/meetings/12/docs/proposal-multihome-assign.html > >Are companies with existing historically assigned address space eligible for >additional space via the small multi-homing assignment policy ? Anyone is eligible. >Should there be a limit of 1 of these assignments made per 'entity', with >renumbering occurring if further address space is required ? For clarification, the current proposal did not specify any limitation on the number of such assignments. What would be the motivation for this? >If so should we consider reserving the next larger block for a period of >time, to account for possible growth ? No reservations will be made. It is generally assumed that applicants will be paying a one-off service fee, rather than an ongoing membership based fee. This is in fact identical to the way that PI assignments can currently be obtained. The proposal restricts the assignments to (about to be) multihomed orgs. >If entity has a 'small multi-homing' assignment and later joins as a member >and qualifies for a /20 PA allocation, are they required to renumber from >the multi-homing assignment ? Yes. The assumption would be that the organisation whose network has grown, would then take the shorter portable prefix would then announce that prefix instead of the longer one. Maybe this should be made more explicit in the policy? >Should 'small multi-homing' assignments be made from a specific (defined) >netblock ? I think there is a choice here. We can use "swamp" space, found mostly in 202/8 which by definition does not contain large ranges of address space, or we can take a range from the less "swampy" space ie. 218/8 and use that. My feeling is that it would be better to use the 202/8 range. >There is significant risk in assigning greater than /20 space from existing >APNIC allocated blocks given that operators often use RIR minium allocation >guides for filtering, if the minimum assignment/allocation for all current >APNIC blocks becomes /23 or /24 this may encourage the deaggregation of >existing PA blocks. I'm not sure I follow the logic. As Geoff pointed out, there is already significant de-aggregation. Despite this, in de-aggregating you still run the increased risk of exposure to more severe route flap dampening parameters as well as filters. The objective in filtering is to limit the size of the routing table, so I dont see this policy encouraging ISPs to adjusting their filters to allow longer prefixes, if anything, rather the other way round. regards Anne APNIC --- * APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List * * To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to [email protected] *
|