Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

>" The InterNIC allocates addresses to ISPs based on the slow start
> procedure as detailed in the ISP guidelines. Please utilize the /19,
> once you have reassigned the /19 and SWIPped them you may request
> additional address space and if the InterNIC feels you are assigning
> them efficiently you may request additional address space."

Because of this policy ISP's should start getting allocations from
the InterNIC as soon as possible. If you get allocations from another
provider, you don't gain any history with the InterNIC. All of
that history goes to the provider's allocations, not yours. When
you outgrow a provider (and the provider's provider), and later
go to the InterNIC, you start over again with 'slow start.'

Now, in various areas, I know that the NIC's procedures have changed
over time. And I'm not talking about IP address space here, but wrt
domain name allocations. But my experience was different recently.

I found that the NIC (aka Kim) was willing to look at our allocation
of a /19 from an old provider's space (in 205/8, so it was routable
to Sprint). What caused problems for us is that we didn't SWIP it
out as we allocated it, but instead SWIPped it out right before going
to the NIC. I can't speak for any other cases, though. We went
into fairly detailed justification for getting address space from the
NIC, and ultimately got a 2-week turnaround time, which was much
better than I had been lead to believe by others that it woud be.

Along the way, it was made clear that the NIC wasn't interested in
Sprint's filtering policies and would not make allocations based on it.

Avi

Avi Freedman writes:

Along the way, it was made clear that the NIC wasn't interested in
Sprint's filtering policies and would not make allocations based on it.

I'm just a country network jockey and don't understand all this stuff,
but Avi's comment is a perfect lead-in ...

What's been bothering me is that Sprint is filtering at /19 in 206/8
but just allocated me a /21 out of 206/8. Since my largest customer
is leaning on me to multi-home, and since I view Sprint's filtering as
indicative of what others are likely to do RSN, I begged Sprint to
allocate a block the size of the smallest block they would route if I
had gotten it from another NSP.

Is it unfair to ask Sprint to make allocations based on its own
filtering policies?

When I multihome and Pennsauken is down, will Sprint's filtering cut
me off from access to other Sprint customers via my alternative path?