On 1/29/14 5:01 PM, Leslie Nobile lesl...@arin.net 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
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
* 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
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
On Feb 1, 2014, at 8:42 AM, Owen DeLong o...@delong.com 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
On Jan 30, 2014, at 3:58 PM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 384bf687-ad8a-4919-9eab-723a09854...@puck.nether.net, Jared
Mauch
writes:
On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
Or you could just accept that there needs to be more routing slots
as
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.
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, would
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
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:29 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org 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
On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org 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
* 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 Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 6:45 PM, Tore Anderson t...@fud.no 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
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
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 available
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
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.
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
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 03:10:56PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
On Jan 31, 2014, at 1:29 PM, Matt Palmer mpal...@hezmatt.org 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
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 Jan 31, 2014, at 5:03 PM, Brett Frankenberger rbf+na...@panix.com 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
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, 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.
In the worst case, this
* Justin M. Streiner
In the worst case, this would add another 262,144 routes (/10 fully
assigned, and all assignments are /28s) to the global IPv4 route view.
Realistically, the number will be a good bit smaller than that, but only
time will tell for sure exactly how much smaller.
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
On Thu, 30 Jan 2014, Tore Anderson wrote:
I wouldn't worry if I were you. I'll wager you $100 that pretty much all
of the people requesting a block from ARIN under this policy (or any
other) is going to go for a /24 (or larger). There is some precedent;
RIPE policy has not mandated a minimum
On Jan 29, 2014, at 10:22 PM, Christopher Morrow morrowc.li...@gmail.com
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
On Wed, 29 Jan 2014 14:16:43 -0800, Seth Mattinen wrote:
On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
Additionally, ARIN has placed 23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in
accordance with the policy Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6
Deployment (NRPM 4.10). There have been no allocations made from
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 10:22 PM, Christopher Morrow
morrowc.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
Additionally, ARIN has placed 23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in accordance
with the policy
On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org 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
In message 384bf687-ad8a-4919-9eab-723a09854...@puck.nether.net, Jared Mauch
writes:
On Jan 30, 2014, at 12:17 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org 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
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 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 why?
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 pine.lnx.4.64.1401301829440.20...@whammy.cluebyfour.org, 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
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. You
may wish to adjust any filters you have in
On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
Additionally, ARIN has placed 23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in accordance with the
policy Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment (NRPM 4.10). There
have been no allocations made from this block as of yet, however, once we do begin
issuing
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
Additionally, ARIN has placed 23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in accordance
with the policy Dedicated IPv4 block to facilitate IPv6 Deployment (NRPM
4.10). There have been no
In message
CAL9jLabq=CSJSv4hufv+LSJ4d2JBhLQPukDcX3gxtc6-1PZA=a...@mail.gmail.com
, Christopher Morrow writes:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Seth Mattinen se...@rollernet.us wrote:
On 1/29/14, 14:01, Leslie Nobile wrote:
Additionally, ARIN has placed 23.128.0.0/10 in its reserves in
On Thursday, January 30, 2014 07:17:11 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
40 matches
Mail list logo
