Activity Summary
- 5067 days inactive
- 5067 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 4 participants
- 3 comments
j
: Next unread message k
: Previous unread message j a
: Jump to all threads
j l
: Jump to MailingList overview
Dear all,
Thanks for your comments.
I think if we are doing /27 allocation, a LIR needs a /24 may have multiple non-contiguous /27, even if ARIN specify sparse allocation and require re-numbering, it may still hard to make sure those small blocks are contiguous and can be a summarized route. Also re-numbering maybe too complicated.
That's what I mean 'create too many routes'. I don't imply that's the main cause of the increase of the global routing table size.
I understand it is possible routing practices will change when we are running out of IPv4, We may have to accept small routes in the future.
if longer route prefixes are more generally accepted, or a smaller minimum allocation size takes effect, we can certainly reduce the size of allocation under this policy to suit future needs. But right now we are doing these based on current best pratice.
Best Regards
Terence
----- Original Message ----- From: "Seiichi Kawamura" kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp To: "Randy Bush" randy@psg.com Cc: "Terence Zhang YH" zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn; sig-policy@apnic.net Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 4:17 PM Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop-78 'Reserving /10 IPv4 address space to facilitate IPv6 deployment' Comments
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I didn't understand this. We may have to accept small routes, but why would this "create" more routes?
Regards, Seiichi
Randy Bush wrote:
I think an allocation size </24 may creat too many routes in the global routing table
why do you think this? could you explain?
i suspect that the routing table size is driven mostly by multi-homing with some traffic engineering.
randy
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
iEYEARECAAYFAktYDa0ACgkQcrhTYfxyMkKmawCeOPKfaVvVw6mbB87x//QVc4xk 5IkAniua6zVnEs5b1t0KahsVzYuql/Ey =Rthc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
if longer route prefixes are more generally accepted, or a smaller minimum allocation size takes effect, we can certainly reduce the size of allocation under this policy to suit future needs. But right now we are doing these based on current best pratice.
you may find the wording of prop-062 interesting
randy
On Jan 22, 2010, at 7:40 AM, Randy Bush wrote:
if longer route prefixes are more generally accepted, or a smaller minimum allocation size takes effect, we can certainly reduce the size of allocation under this policy to suit future needs. But right now we are doing these based on current best pratice.
you may find the wording of prop-062 interesting
randy
What Randy means is that by explicitly defining the size of allocations under prop-062 as the minimum allocation permissible under current APNIC policies, it effectively externalizes that definition, thereby making the size an independently tunable factor. When (if) the APNIC community decides to embrace the idea of smaller minimum allocations in general, the new minimum will automatically apply to prop-062 allocations as well.
TV
What Randy means is that by explicitly defining the size of allocations under prop-062 as the minimum allocation permissible under current APNIC policies, it effectively externalizes that definition, thereby making the size an independently tunable factor. When (if) the APNIC community decides to embrace the idea of smaller minimum allocations in general, the new minimum will automatically apply to prop-062 allocations as well.