[1513] in North American Network Operators' Group
Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Karrenberg)
Thu Jan 25 05:08:05 1996
To: "Forrest W. Christian" <forrestc@imach.com>
Cc: postel@isi.edu, nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@IEPG.ORG, iepg@IEPG.ORG,
iab@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu, iana@isi.edu, netreg@internic.net,
ncc@ripe.net, hostmaster@apnic.net
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 24 Jan 1996 19:52:35 MST.
<Pine.LNX.3.91.960124191950.28471A-100000@iMach.com>
From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 11:01:48 +0100
> 2) Convince the big ISP's to permit prefixes longer than /18 in the
> routing tables.
Again:
Why is this discussion so fixed about basing policies strictly on
prefix length? And also on the value of /18 which just *happens*
to be the value chosen by *one particular* ISP?
This is not a fact. It is a possibility.
Another possibility is to watch the total number of prefixes routed,
possibly charge for routing each one, and not arbitrarily restrict
prefix length.
The goals of address space conservation and routing aggregation will
always be somewhat conflicting. Compromises have to be found. This is
the daily business of Internet registries and ISPs.
Just a fact of Internet life.
Daniel
