North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: BGP Question - how do work around pigheaded ISPs
- From: Stephen Griffin
- Date: Sat Feb 10 20:43:34 2001
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
> 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