Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: MIR proposal / reservation revisited?
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 10:25:05 +0100
> I do not see the need to introduce new registry types or structures
> unless you believe that 'selling the right to assign IP addresses to
> entities down the hierarchy' is a valid reason.
>
I appreciate your concerns and arguments but i do not think you fully
understand our particular problem, what you described in your reply applies
to networks within one LIR sub-allocating to resellers or pops. What i
descrided was a multi-national massive internal aggregation problem. A
network with 200 000 internal routes and 17 LIR's each with their own
fragmentation happening within their confederacies. It is 1 AS with multiple
exchanges which means we pass on much more routes than we really need to. In
short if we do not find a way of reducing the growth of internal routes we
will hit the memory wall some time next year. It was never percieved that
the Internet would every get this big with such large routing tables for
just one AS so the concept of an MIR was never proposed. The NIR does not
address the MIR issues, it is not there for routing reasons but purley to
fulfill a countries political needs. One other that was proposed and tried
was confederacies (not to confuse it with BGP term although the principles
are similar) but confeds failed because they addressed the routing issues
but gave an unfair advantage to to the ISP's running the confed. Although i
can not attend the RIPE meeting i will try and detail the MIR proposal so it
can be discussed and dismissed in my absence. Though the proposal is
probably alien to most on the list the problem is very real. Adding the
partitioning funtionality to the DB is a start to development of the concept
(Please call it something else). I will follow this email some time today
with a more detailed proposal for the MIR.
PS To answer Wilfreds question, it is not reservation revisited it is
aggregation revisited ;)
Regards
Stephen Burley
UUNET EMEA Hostmaster
SB855-RIPE
> Just my EUR0.02.
>
> Michael van Elst
>
>
> >
> > Wilfried.
> > ______________________________________________________________________
> >
> > Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:58:24 +0200
> > From: Gert Doering gert@localhost
> > To: Adrian Bool aid@localhost
> > > Subject: Re: [hostmaster-staff] Re: MIR proposal
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 12:05:41PM +0100, Adrian Bool wrote:
> > > I feel that international networks require the ability to operate
according
> > > to the same rules as RIPE - just working on a smaller scale - as
another
> > > level down in the hierarchy.
> >
> > Not only "international networks", but also national ones that have a
> > hierarchical structure of re-sellers.
> >
> > > i.e We should should be able to apply for more IP space once we have
> > > sub-allocated 80% of our allocation to our in-country networks -
natuarally
> > > in a responsible manner, according to the same rules that an RIR would
> > > allocate space to these in-country networks.
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > Gert Doering
> > -- NetMaster
> > --
> > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@localhost
> > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
> > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
> --
> i.A. Michael van Elst / phone: +49 721 9652 330
> Xlink - Network Information Centre \/ fax: +49 721 9652 349
> Emmy-Noether-Strasse 9 /\ link http://nic.xlink.net/
> D-76131 Karlsruhe, Germany /_______ email:
hostmaster@localhost
> [ KPNQwest Germany GmbH, Sitz
]
> [ Amtsgericht Karlsruhe HRB 8161, Geschaeftsfuehrer: Michael
Mueller-Berg ]
>
