Criteria for initial PA Allocation

Hiya all,

I agree completely with Gert.

Not everyone can have a globally routable address block just so they can be
multihomed.

At the very least we need considerable obstacles to prevent everyone from
trying to achieve this.

Either we must charge $ for this benefit (I dislike this option too), or we
must make rules to prevent excessive growth in the routing table, or we can do
as we have so far (make the process so complex that folks give up before they
succeed !!!).

The problem I see is agreeing on the rules to prevent excessive growth. Just
deciding what is excessive growth is hard enough.

When these rules are determined, in my view they also need applying
identically to the IPv6 address space.

Cheers
Dave

On Tue, 22 May 2001, Gert Doering, Netmaster wrote:

->Hi,
->
->(originally I did not really want to participate in this discussion,
->as much of it has already been said in the last LIR-WG meeting).
->
->One thing got me thinking,though:
->
->On Tue, May 22, 2001 at 02:16:32PM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
->> /22 is a much more reasonable value by my view...
->
->Be careful what you are asking for.
->
->If we assume that minimum allocation size will go down to a /22, and
->further assume that one fourth of the full IPv4 address range will
->subsequently be handed out *and announced* as /22's, this means we
->will see ( 1/4 * 2^22 ) = 1048576 /22's announced in the global BGP
->table.  That's over a million BGP routing table entries.
->
->This will have a significant effect on BGP routing stability and
->also on the costs of global routing - you need a Gig of RAM in all
->the BGP routers (on distributed architectures, more than that).  The
->CPU power required to handle a flap of a major line in a timely fashion
->(to keep BGP convergence times low) will be horrendous.
->
->Also, it can be assumed that in this case, the global topology will
->become complex enough so that most of the time many of the smaller
->ASes won't be reachable anyway due to problems "on the way".
->
->I think this is something I do NOT want to see.
->
->
->So, what is my conclusion?  I estimate that while IPv4 address exhaustion
->is going to be a problem (which IPv6 will solve), the routing topology
->will cause major problems *sooner* than IPv4 runs out, and we should
->do something against this.  By this, I mean:
->
-> - strongly encourage people to renumber from historic PI space to
->   PA space from their ISPs network block (and return the PI space
->   to the RIRs, to be aggregated)
->
-> - stop handing out PI space
->
-> - discourage "end users" from using multihoming with globally visible
->   address space (there are other ways, like "get multiple uplinks
->   to different POPs of the same ISP, and have them sign a SLA that
->   will get you 99.9% reachability or money back").
->
-> - discourage people from becoming LIR if that's only to get "portable"
->   address space, with no intention of handing PA space out to customers.
->
->Yes, this might sound a bit harsh, but I'm *really* worried about
->routeability and reachability of anything in the next couple of years.
->
->Now go and flame me... :-)
->
->Gert Doering
->        -- NetMaster
->--
->SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster at Space.Net
->Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
->80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299
->
->
->