<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I also need to raise my voice in opposition to clause 3.5.2 of the soft landing proposal (in addition to other objections I’ve raised)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Let’s look at a couple of facts around /24s vs /27s<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>5 years ago, the routing table was at < 200k routes in the DFZ, today, we’re at around 340k.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Most people are currently filtering anything smaller than /27 other than POSSIBLY from their direct customers. If we were to allow routes as small as a /27 and IF the rest of the internet would accept these routes, which I SERIOUSLY doubt, we are looking at a potential for the routing table to rise to over the 500k mark.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Now, for anyone carrying a full routing table, this could be a major problem. The fact is, there are a LOT of people running hardware that would simply not function on full table if the v4 routing table grew to this size.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Please note the following taken off a 7600 with a SUP720-3bxl engine:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Module FIB TCAM usage: Total Used %Used<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> 5 72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM) 524288 344998 66%<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> 144 bits (IP mcast, IPv6) 262144 4977 2%<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>Off a RSP720-3cXL engine:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>L3 Forwarding Resources<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> Module FIB TCAM usage: Total Used %Used<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> 5 72 bits (IPv4, MPLS, EoM) 524288 346496 66%<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'> 144 bits (IP mcast, IPv6) 262144 4998 2%<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>These routers are not old ancient routers out of the dim and distant past, these are currently in production, on sale routers, that people are actively buying today. The routing table grows to much bigger, and a LOT of people are going to hit a MAJOR problem. In the same way people running non-XL versions of these stopped being able to carry full table a while back. The difference there was, there was an XL upgrade you could get, in this case, replace your whole router.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>And before people say that I’m purely fighting this from a Cisco stance, this has nothing to do with Cisco vs any other vendor, this has to do with what hardware is currently out there and heavily deployed and the issues the policy could cause on active in use hardware irrespective of the vendor.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>The second major problem with this clause is the simple fact that if we start issuing /27s, we are going to be issuing blocks which will be filtered by the majority of the world. This is kind of senseless, and that filtering by the rest of the world, is unlikely to change, particularly considering the issues highlighted above. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'>I also need to point out that there is currently a proposal before RIPE as well to make minimum allocation sizes of /24. In this proposal it specifically states under the supporting arguments:<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#262626'>“Removal of discrimination: prefixes of /25 and longer are routinely filtered by many network service providers on the Internet. As many End Users who apply for PI assignments do so for the purposes of small-scale multi-homing, in practice the current assignment policies discriminate against these End Users.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><i><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#262626'><o:p> </o:p></span></i></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#262626'>Thanks<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#262626'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#262626'>Andrew Alston<o:p></o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span class=apple-style-span><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#262626'><o:p> </o:p></span></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:#262626'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> rpd-bounces@afrinic.net [mailto:rpd-bounces@afrinic.net] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Stacy Hughes<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, February 28, 2011 11:07 PM<br><b>To:</b> rpd@afrinic.net<br><b>Subject:</b> [AfriNIC-rpd] Opposition to AFPUB-2010-v4-005-draft-01<o:p></o:p></span></p></div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Esteemed Colleagues,<o:p></o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>I must speak in opposition to this proposal. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>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. Incorporation of and transition to IPv6 is the way forward, and necessary for all of us.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>I especially disagree with direct assignments or allocations of IPv4 space in subnets of longer prefix lengths than /24. It is pointless to assign blocks that a significant portion of the Internet will not see, and harmful to bloat the routing table.<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Thank you,<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>Stacy Hughes<o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>(speaking only for myself and not for my affiliations)<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></body></html>