Re: [sig-policy] Pro-100:National IP Address Plan - Allocation of countr
Just to provide another data point to assist with the discussion. In my
Routing Table Report, which I have presented at many operational fora
over the years, I've pointed out some of the examples of large address
blocks being chopped, for no apparent reason, into little pieces.
Here is an example. If you take a look at AS4755, you can see that they
have been allocated 14.140.0.0/14. Yet this block is announced in about
40 pieces. Or 59.160.0.0/14 and 59.164.0.0/15 which are being announced
in a total of 300 pieces. etc.
http://www.cidr-report.org/cgi-bin/as-report?as=AS4755&view=2.0 shows
the entire breakdown for this ASN. The same can be done for any ASN, and
I demonstrate examples in those presentation reports and in the BGP Best
Practices tutorials over recent years.
I think it would help to clarify how the proposal would solve the above
existing problem.
philip
--
Naresh Ajwani said the following on 22/08/11 16:41 :
> Dear Rakesh jee,
>
> Community is keen to support this proposal with little more detailing on logics for the proposed size. You are free to add the same in your proposal.
>
> Regards and best wishes,
>
> Naresh Ajwani
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 22, 2011, at 11:23, Randy Bush <randy at psg dot com> wrote:
>
>>> There are customers both Multi homed and non multihomed. Trading and
>>> renumbering is not possible because ISPs and APNIC allocate IPs from
>>> different pools. This is precisely the solution proposed to address by
>>> assigning bigger pools.
>>
>> you keep saying this, but you keep omitting the part which explains at a
>> technical level how larger pools help. and folk who have a history of
>> routing clue do not believe they do. so the onus is on you.
>>
>> randy
>