I don't think the proposal at this point is too bad. Happy to be persuaded otherwise.
If someone is prepared to make the leap into a /22 then 20% of what's remaining in the
existing upstream allocation is not a massive amount of space. How many assignments happen
from upstream to downstream that is greater than a /22?
We're expecting everyone who takes the global routing table to be (or have been) busy
upgrading to v4/v6 dual stack and I presume as a consequence they have nice shiny routers
with lots of mem/cpu etc. Therefore the number of prefixes in the GRT is much less a
concern these days right?
On 28/01/2011, at 3:22 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
The APNIC policy proposal 94 allows an operator to put
in for new
IPv4 space without having to renumber, if they can show that they've
used 80% of the space already obtained from their upstream.
That seems bad in two ways
1. It allows 19.99% of IPv4 space to be hoarded.
2. It probably encourages disaggregation, compared with
renumbering into this new block.
NZNOG mailing list