In message <0a78151e-0fdb-4276-9b14-6a88e2941...@istaff.org>, John Curran writes: > On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:20 PM, Mark Andrews <ma...@isc.org> wrote: > > > I figure there will be similar problem for other business in other > > countries and they will fight a similar battles. Eventually the > > regulators will step in because it is bad for small businesses to > > be shut out of the Internet. > > Mark - > > ISPS consciously breaking Internet services are bound to attract > regulatory attention, but that does not necessarily mean that in > the end there will be regulatory action. In the case of peering > and route acceptance, it is fairly easy to show that there is a > finite amount of routes that a given ISP can accept, and each of > these routes has different value (i.e. some have large traffic > flows, some are peer traffic engineering, some of required backup > routes for shared multihomed corporate customers, etc.) > > The result is not simple to regulate, because you can't just > mandate "accept all routes offered" - some ISPs are already > trimming what they accept to accommodate their particular > flavor of routing hardware. > > For last few decades, we've basically been relying on the IP > allocation/assignment policies and their minimum block sizes as > a proxy for the default "worth accepting" metric, but this may not > prevail once there is serious pressure to fragment blocks to obtain > better utilization. It would be nice if there was a way to fairly > "settle up" for the imputed cost of adding a given route to the > routing table, as this would provide some proportionate backpressure > on growth, would create incentives for deaggregate cleanup, etc. > We don't have such a system, so it falls to each ISP to decide what > route is worth accepting based on type and the offering peer's > business relationship... > > FYI, > /John
I understand this but this block changes the status quo. It is a policy changer. AFAIK ARIN hasn't done allocations to the /28 level like this in the past. This is all new territory. Concentrating the allocation is a good thing as it allow selective extentions of the filter lengths. This is about a potential 1.6% global growth of routes. It's not 1500% potential growth that a global /24 -> /28 would give. > Disclaimer: My views alone. Note - I haven't had enable on any > backbone routers in this _century_, so feel free to > discount/discard if so desired. ;-) -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
