On 1/29/14 5:01 PM, "Leslie Nobile" wrote:
>
>ARIN would like to share two items of information that may be of interest
>to the community.
>
>First, ARIN has recently begun to issue address space from its last
>contiguous /8, 104.0.0.0 /8. The minimum allocation size for this /8
>will be a /24.
Tore Anderson wrote:
[...]
> It's not exactly new. Like I've mentioned earlier in this thread, the
> RIPE NCC has granted assignments smaller than /24 to requestors since,
> well, "forever". There are currently 238 such assignments listed in
> delegated-ripencc-extended-latest.txt. However, these
On Friday, January 31, 2014 01:58:58 AM Mark Andrews wrote:
> This range adds a maximum of 245760 (2^18-2^14) routes to
> the global routing table. Do you really want to go to
> court for this many routes?
There is also a reasonable chance that acceptance of /28's
could be strict in the beginni
On Feb 1, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> While the policy text does not spell out a list of technologies, I believe
> that the clear intent of the community from the discussions and from
> the examples given in the policy text was for minimal IPv4 allocations
> to support the transition p
While the policy text does not spell out a list of technologies, I believe
that the clear intent of the community from the discussions and from
the examples given in the policy text was for minimal IPv4 allocations
to support the transition process. While no ratio is given in the policy
text, I dou
* Owen DeLong
> In answer to Tore's statement, this block does not apply the standard
> justification criteria and I think you would actually be quite hard
> pressed to justify a /24 from this prefix. In most cases, it is
> expected that these would be the IPv4 address pool for the public
> facing
On Jan 31, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Brett Frankenberger wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:10:51AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>>
>>> A /8 slot costs as much as a /28 slot to hold process etc. A routing
>>> slot is a routing slot. The *only* reason this isn't a legal problems
>>> at the moment is peo
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:10:56 -0800, Owen DeLong said:
> Thats the optimistic outcome. The pessimistic outcome is that they get
> rapidly depeered by everyone unwilling to pay $X/GB and then start losing
> customers because their customers can no longer reach anyone elses
> customers through them
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:10:56PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
> > Imagine one of the big players saying, "we're going to charge you $X per
> > route you send to us" (just like transit agreements that state, "we will
> > charge you $X/GB of traffic")
Without making a policy proposal, (yet), it might make sense to have a
suggestion to ARIN that if it *does* end up allocating multiple /28s from one
/24 intermediate, that the /24 be regionally reserved so that all sub-blocks
are physically nearby and could collaborate on a cooperative /24 globa
I get the idea behind it, but it really has no real world usage. I can
still find 15 year old swips from people with /8s who keep getting more
addresses. Break out the audits before their next blocks.
I will attempt to clarify this once more...
When I wrote the policy which created this set-aside space, it was, as Bill has
said, intended as a hedge to provide minimal resources for organizations that
are unable to obtain larger IPv4 blocks through any normal mechanism (standard
allocation/ass
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 05:10:51AM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
> > A /8 slot costs as much as a /28 slot to hold process etc. A routing
> > slot is a routing slot. The *only* reason this isn't a legal problems
> > at the moment is people can still get /24s. The moment /24's aren't
> > readily a
has it be clarified by arin on why they are going to allocate /28s? seems
a faster way to waste ipv4 space with unusable ip addresses? The only
thing I can think of is micro allocations for IX points.
*Bryan Socha*
Network Engineer
646.450.0472 | *br...@serverstack.com *
*ServerStack* | Sca
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Tore Anderson wrote:
> What I fail to understand from this thread is the apparent expectation
> that these smaller-than-/24 microscopic delegations from ARIN will be
> popular.
Hi Tore,
There is every expectation that they will be unpopular. They're a
hedge again
* Mark Andrews
> 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.
It's not exactly new. Like I've mentioned earlier in this thread, the
RIPE NCC has granted
On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:09:43AM -0500, John Curran wrote:
>> 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
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Matt Palmer wrote:
> Imagine one of the big players saying, "we're going to charge you $X per
> route you send to us" (just like transit agreements that state, "we will
> charge you $X/GB of traffic"), or "your contract allows you to send us N
> routes" (just like,
In message <0a78151e-0fdb-4276-9b14-6a88e2941...@istaff.org>, John Curran
writes:
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:20 PM, Mark Andrews 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
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 11:09:43AM -0500, John Curran wrote:
>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, woul
On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:20 PM, Mark Andrews 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 -
On Jan 30, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> In message <384bf687-ad8a-4919-9eab-723a09854...@puck.nether.net>, Jared
> Mauch
> writes:
>>
>> On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>>
>>> Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
>>> as the numbe
In message , "Justin M
. Streiner" writes:
> On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > In Australia I would sue Telstra, Optus, ... if their customers
> > couldn't reach me due to routes being filtered. I would take this
> > to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) as a
On Fri, 31 Jan 2014, Mark Andrews wrote:
In Australia I would sue Telstra, Optus, ... if their customers
couldn't reach me due to routes being filtered. I would take this
to the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) as a
restraint of trade issue.
And if the provider doing the
In message <52eaeae2.6090...@rollernet.us>, Seth Mattinen writes:
> On 1/30/14, 15:58, Mark Andrews wrote:
> > The moment /24's aren't
> > readily available and they are forced into using this range anyone
> > filtering on /24 in this range is leaving themselves open to lawsuits.
>
>
> Because w
On 1/30/14, 15:58, Mark Andrews wrote:
The moment /24's aren't
readily available and they are forced into using this range anyone
filtering on /24 in this range is leaving themselves open to lawsuits.
Because why? Cartels? Illuminati? I want to travel by stargate. Who do I
sue?
~Seth
In message <384bf687-ad8a-4919-9eab-723a09854...@puck.nether.net>, Jared Mauch
writes:
>
> On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
>
> > Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
> > as the number of businesses on the net increases. I can see some
> > intere
On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews wrote:
> Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
> as the number of businesses on the net increases. I can see some
> interesting anti-cartel law suits happening if ISP's refuse to
> accept /28's from this block.
i suspect i
On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Christopher Morrow
wrote:
> maybe these weren't meant to be used outside the local ASN? :)
> I do wonder though what the purpose of this block is? If it's to be
> used inside the local ASN (as seems to be indicated based upon minimum
> allocation sizes) then why no
As the author of the policy which set this block aside, I speak only from my
perspective as the author and not officially on behalf of ARIN or the AC in any
way:
The intent is to provide very small allocations/assignments for organizations
which need some amount of IPv4 for a best-effort to fac
30 matches
Mail list logo
