Re: Changes to PI Policy?
- Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 17:16:46 +0100
At 18:05 22/04/2003 +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 05:59:10PM +0200, Andre Chapuis wrote:
> was only a suggestion....
> Let's say RIPE assigns 300x /24 to customers requesting
PI, they could as well assign 300x /29 and this would
always create 300 more routes in the Internet, not more;
and saving address-space.
If those customers really only need a /29, why do they need PI space?
Unless this question can be answered in a way that's more than "because
they want!", I don't see any need to "fix" the policy here.
The justification for address space will always be "I want it because I
have N computers" and it cannot be possible for a registry to disagree
with that request.
If the request is "I have N computers which I want to connect to multiple
providers, but I don't wish to allocate address space to anyone else"
then PI space is the only (realistic) option.
If the problem is that
(a) we have a limited amount of IPv4 address space
(b) we can also only have a limited number of routes
then we must place them at each end of a set of scales and determine
the appropriate compromise to make the whole thing balance whilst we
think of a better solution (bigger routers, caching, etc).
Andre suggests that he could cope with /29 allocations. You prefer /24
Would more /29 allocations cause such routing bloat as to cause a problem?
Would the wastage caused by /24 allocations cause an allocation problem?
Could some one at RIPE NCC do some mathematical modelling to
demonstrate the different affects that different balances might make?
peter gradwell. gradwell dot com Ltd. http://www.gradwell.com/
engineering & hosting services for email, web and usenet