North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?

  • From: Karl Denninger
  • Date: Sat May 16 16:55:12 1998

On Sat, May 16, 1998 at 04:36:10PM -0400, Jon Lewis wrote:
> On Sat, 16 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > Why do you need to renumber out of previous space if MCI doesn't have to
> > when they get a bigger block handed to them?
> Well...because I knew from day 1 that our UUNet space was non-portable,
> and that we were effectively borrowing it.
> > Why should your *customers* bear the burden of this policy?
> This was the part that sucked.  Renumbering was a bitch, but with proper
> planning, it really wasn't too big a deal...just lots of work.
> Renumbering is one of those tasks during which you really find out which
> of your customers have clues and which are a few clues short of a full
> deck.
> > My point: you shouldn't, and your customer's shouldn't.  You should, as a
> > multi-homed ISP, be able to get a /19 immediately and without obstruction -
> > period.
> We didn't start out multihomed.  We were singlehomed for 3 years.  Are you
> saying we should have been able to keep our UUNet IP space (even though we
> left UUNet)?


You should have been able to, at the point you purchased the second DS1 and
multihomed, been able to obtain a free and clear /19 - end of discussion.

To get the SECOND /19 you'd have to show that the first one was consumed.
The algorythm is simple - you construct a rate-of-use table for the 
subsequent allocations which look something like this:

	Used previous allocation in < 3 months  = Add 2 bits to the size
		(ie: Used a /19 in > 3 months, get a /17 next time)

	Used previous allocation in < 6 months	= Add 1 bit to the size
		(ie: Used a /19 in < 6 months, get a /18 next time)

	Used previous allocation >= 6 months, <= 1 years = Same size

	Used previous allocation >= 1 year = Decrease one bit size UNLESS
		you were at a /19, in which case we give you another /19

Simple, objective, conservative, automatically rate-adjusts to actual
conditions without any gamesmanship possible, "subjective" evaluation, 
requirement to submit materials under NDA, or anything else.

We can tune the "time values" to obtain optimum results, but frankly, I bet
these are a pretty good guess.

Now tell me why we shouldn't be doing it this way.....

Even the largest firms could do this and it would work.  EVERYONE starts
with a /19 - including Joe's Big Provider.  

Joe gets a /19.  He uses it in a week (since he's Mr. Big)
He comes back, and gets a /17.  He uses THAT in a week.
He comes back, and gets a /16 (2 contig /16s).  Things start to slow down
(he's getting MAJOR space; 16x more in a chunk now than he started with!)

He uses the /15 (that's 512 class "C"s!) in six months, and gets a /14.

The /14 lasts him two years, unless he's REALLY Mr. Big, in which case he
does this again once or twice more ends up somewhere between a /13 and 
a /11 (32 class "B"s!)

So we just got Mr. Big on the net - completely - with less than a half-dozen
announcements.  If he SAYS he'll be back in a week up front we do smart
things and hold the contig portions for a month or so (to see if he's full
of horse-hockey) so we can just expand the original allocation - thereby
conserving one or two route entries.

Note that even if you don't "hold", it makes no significant difference
anyway; a half-dozen route entries is insignificant for someone of this

Contrast that to what MCI or any other "major" carrier announces today, and
then tell me why this isn't a superior, easier to implement, and WORKABLE

CC:	Arin Advisory Council

Karl Denninger ([email protected])| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin          | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV
			     | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%!
Fax:   [+1 312 803-4929]     | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost