Re: Verio Peering Question

[Alex Bligh <alex () alex org uk>]

Jeff,

> > Those who propose filtering a la Verio / Sprint(passim) suggest that
> > your incentive to renumber is that certain other (not in the line of
> > transit) networks will not accept these prefixes (or apply more
> > stringent dampening on them), and hence give you inferior routing
> > either permanently (filtering) or temporarilly (dampening), assuming
> > you have a covering netblock.
>
> But that's not an incentive to renumber at all, because I can't go to
> ARIN and say, "I want to renumber out of these disparate blocks and get
> one big one that is more globally routable."  So renumbering out of the
> block that I'm thinking of (204.252.74/24, FWIW) still doesn't do me any
> good.

Well, I'm more familiar with RIPE than ARIN, but if you are saying
'If I were to apply for a /x anew, ARIN would give it to me, but
as I already have a /a, a /b, a /c, ARIN won't let me return them,
and renumber into a /x' I'd suggest that policy needs looking at,
for exactly the reasons you suggest.

I /do/ know of instances where companies have (say) an old /16,
severely underutilized, and want to get more space for some reason,
offer to return their old space, but insist on getting at least a
/19 (or similar) on the grounds of routability, even though if
they made the application afresh they'd get at most (say) a /22.
Hard one to call that.

--
Alex Bligh
Personal Capacity