You are here: Home > Participate > Join a Discussion > Mailman Archives
<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: Changes to PI Policy?

  • To: Peter Gradwell < >
  • From: Gert Doering < >
  • Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2003 20:27:36 +0200


On Tue, Apr 22, 2003 at 05:16:46PM +0100, Peter Gradwell wrote:
> >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.

Of course not.  But the request in itself is flawed.  I *still* haven't
seen a single good reason for globally routeable /29s (except "they might

> 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 setup is such that a /29 is sufficient address space, other ways
of connecting to multiple ISPs exist that do not require a global routing
table entry.

> 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
> allocations.

No.  I said I'm not going to route anything more specific than a /24.

This does NOT mean "everybody has to go for a /24".  It could also mean
"re-think what you're asking for".

> Would more /29 allocations cause such routing bloat as to cause a problem?

Every single global route is to be weighted very carefully.

As I said, I have yet to see a reason for a globally visible route if
there are only 5-6 machines in that network.  Other approaches exist
for such small networks.

For a /24, with maybe 200 machines in there, renumbering is much more
work, and something can be said for convenience in changing ISPs (but
then, if this is *only* for "Internet surfing", this could very well 
be handled by proper planning and preparation - for VPN customer 
connections, things are more difficult).

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations:  58512  (58485)

SpaceNet AG                 Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299

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