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 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-----
