<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Changes to PI Policy?

  • To: leo vegoda < >
  • From: Sabri Berisha < >
  • Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 22:39:03 +0200

On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 08:17:25PM +0200, leo vegoda wrote:

> If the concept of PI is not broken then the most obvious question
> is, should there be a minimum assignment size for PI?
> 
> If those requiring PI received a minimum prefix length (and then
> whatever they need) then we could be sure the addresses were useful.
> However, this would probably mean that many people that could
> genuinely use a /28 would be be eligible for more addresses,
> probably a /24.

A /24 is generally considered to be the smallest network still routable. I
know of no tier-1 who announces a prefix longer then a /24 to their
peers. However, sometimes that could be exactly what you want. An
example of this is 194.153.157.128/27 which is used by a customer of
mine who uses this space to make sure a network is only reachable on a
limited part of the internet.

So, yes and know. If the PI-requester needs to have global routability,
a /24 would be the smallest block that could be assigned.
 
> If the "Land Rush" is considered to be a dangerous possibility then
> it might be possible to introduce qualifying criteria. At this point
> it gets tricky as it's necessary to start chosing who is 'special'
> and who is unlucky. For instance, a root DNS server might well be
> special, a ccTLD DNS server? an IXP (yes, I know there are good
> technical reasons for not using PA). I assume that my home network
> is not very special, but some people might thing that their SOHO 
> networks are critical infrastructure.

I have received a /24 PI space for services which are DDoS sensitive
(yes, that includes, but is not limited to IRC). This has saved my
customers and me a lot of downtime so I would definately say that this
should be one of the criteria to assign PI space. So far I was not able
to detect any loss of connectivity due to it being a small PI block. 
 
> Finally, it is necessary to consider that the space in 193/8 and
> 194/7 is a finite resource. In the two years between October 2000
> and October 2002 we assigned just under a /13 and a /15 of PI (in
> total[1]). The total size of the space we have left in 193/8 and
> /194/7 is just over a /13. We do not make PA allocations from these
> /8s any more, to make sure that we have PI space available for the
> forseeable future.

Will there be more space available for PI assignments (as in, will IANA
allocate more to the RIPE NCC)?

-- 
Sabri Berisha   "I route, therefore you are"

Per user RBL checking: http://www.cluecentral.net/rblcheck/

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature


  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>