[AusNOG] What is more important? - ipv4 vs. routing table size

[Tony]

I don't know about other RIR's but APNIC has a policy that allows small organisations who wish to multihome to obtain an allocation smaller than the default minimum (/22):

http://www.apnic.net/policy/add-manage-policy#11..1

=====
An organization is considered to be multi-homed if its network receives full-time connectivity from more than one ISP and has one or more routing prefixes announced by at least two of its ISPs.

organizations requesting a portable assignment under these terms must demonstrate that they are able to use 25 percent of the requested assignment immediately and 50 percent within one year.

There is no minimum assignment size for portable assignments made under these terms.
=====

I think that policy is still active ? Perhaps someone from APNIC could give some statistics on how many allocations are being made under this policy and what size they are ?

In practise if you were going to obtain a small allocation for multihoming you would want it to be at least a /24 anyway as that is usually the smallest that most upstream providers will accept via BGP advertisement.

On the size of routing tables, I would assume that anyone receiving a full route table has accepted the fact it is going to grow in the next couple of years and is planning for it. Given that routers are going be holding both IPv4 & IPv6 routing tables they will need to be beefier anyway, so whats a few extra IPv4 prefixes ?

One of the problems has a definite, easy solution (ie. larger routing hardware even if it does cost money) and one of the problems doesn't have a solution (ie. when you run out of address space, you've run out of address space). Based on this alone it's going to be a lot easier to solve the problem that can actually be solved and allocate smaller prefixes where required.



regards,
Tony.


--- On Fri, 7/8/09, Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve at eintellego.net> wrote:

> From: Skeeve Stevens <Skeeve at eintellego.net>
> Subject: [AusNOG] What is more important? - ipv4 vs. routing table size
> To: "Policy SIG" <sig-policy at apnic.net>, "ausnog at ausnog.net" <ausnog at ausnog.net>, "nznog" <nznog at list.waikato.ac.nz>
> Date: Friday, 7 August, 2009, 1:28 AM
> 
> 
> Hey
> all, 
> 
> 
> I’d
> like to stimulate some
> discussion regarding IPv4 conservation vs. The size of the
> routing table. 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> I’d
> like to hear what
> people think is more important – and why –
> which it is more
> important – or a miz? 
> 
> 
> IPv4
> conservation – possibly
> allocating smaller default allocations – or making it
> easier (/24, /23) 
> 
> vs.
> 
> The size
> or the routing
> table.  If by a more conservative allocation above was
> done, and the world
> table jumped to 400, 500 thousands or more routes –
> what implications
> would this have on routers and so on. 
> 
> 
>   
> 
> APNIC’s minimum is a /22 (was
> a /19 in 2000) (4 * /24’s) 
> 
> ARIN is a
> /20 to ISPs (16 * /24’s)
> 
> RIPE is a /21 (8 * /24’s) 
> 
> LANIC is
> a /21 (I think) 
> 
> AFRINIC
> is a /22 (4 * /24’s) 
> 
> 
> There are
> smaller hosting
> companies out there (here in ANZ at least) that want to be
> on, hosting,
> multi-homed, but only need a /24 or /23, but they’re
> given the minimum
> allocation on a /22 – whether they need it or
> not. 
> 
> 
> Thoughts? 
> 
>   
> 
> -- 
> 
> Skeeve Stevens,
> CEO/Technical Director 
> 
> eintellego Pty
> Ltd - The Networking Specialists 
> 
> skeeve at eintellego.net
> / www.eintellego.net 
> 
> Phone: 1300 753
> 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954 
> 
> Cell +61 (0)414
> 753 383 / skype://skeeve 
> 
> www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve
> ; facebook.com/eintellego 
> 
> -- 
>