[AfriNIC-rpd] Opposition to AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-01

[Daniam Henriques]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:52 PM, Andrew Alston <aa at tenet.ac.za> wrote:

> Hi Tim,
>
> As per my previous email, yes, it does, clause 3.5.2 lowers the minimum
> allocation size to a /27, which I think is hugely problematic.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpd-bounces at afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces at afrinic.net] On Behalf
> Of McTim
> Sent: Monday, February 28, 2011 11:22 PM
> To: Stacy Hughes
> Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
> Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Opposition to AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-01
>
> Dear IP Goddess,
>
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 12:07 AM, Stacy Hughes <ipgoddess.arin at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Esteemed Colleagues,
> > I must speak in opposition to this proposal.
> > First, I am philosophically opposed to soft landing proposals in general.
> >  When the party is over, it's time to go home.  We don't get 5 more
> minutes
> > or more birthday cake.
>
> Have you ever been to a 1st graders birthday party???....they get the
> 5 more minutes AND more cake...I experienced this first hand a few
> days ago ;-/
>
>   Incorporation of and transition to IPv6 is the way
> > forward, and necessary for all of us.
>
>
> Full ACK
>
> >
> > I especially disagree with direct assignments or allocations of IPv4
> space
> > in subnets of longer prefix lengths than /24.
>
> Does this proposal do that?  If so, I must have missed that in this
> iteration.
>
> Personally, I too would disagree with the allocation of prefixes that are
greater than /24 in length.

While one could argue that filtering could be amended to facilitate such a
requirement, a number of technical issues, some of which have been raised by
Andrew Alston, exist which would mean that such a decision would have far
reaching consequences related to current hardware and software limitations.

Individual and regional providers may be convinced to update their filters,
however this is something which would require global buy-in with the major
service providers and transit providers of the world. Without service
providers agreeing to accept these longer prefixes, those that have been
assigned these prefixes will be unable to make use of them in any meaningf

Additionally allowing /27 or greater subnets to be received within the
global BGP table and to view such advertisements as acceptable will most
likely promote further de-aggregation of the global table as various
providers de-aggregate their existing subnets to achieve traffic
engineering.

--
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20110301/090154d4/attachment.html>