[1536] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST))
Thu Jan 25 23:35:11 1996
From: Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST) <nanog@dune.silkroad.com>
To: kozowski@structured.net (Eric Kozowski)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 23:25:12 -0500 (EST)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@iepg.org, iab@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu, iana@isi.edu,
bass@dune.silkroad.com
In-Reply-To: <199601260207.SAA00528@chaos.structured.net> from "Eric Kozowski" at Jan 25, 96 06:07:51 pm
[ ... ]
Eric suggests:
>
> We need to decide which is a bigger problem - number of routes or remaining
> address space. We can't have it both ways.
Correct and agreed, but deeper and more accurately stated:
What must be described and documented, are the priorities and constraints of
the Internet Society, the Board, the IETF, or whomever sets engineering policy:
(random order..... please do not read or interpret meanings)
1. Maintain Highest Grow Rate Possible
2. Maintain Highest Connectivity Possible
3. Promote Small ISP and Start-Up Business
4. Maintain High Reachability/Availability
5. Reduce Size of Routing Table(s)
6. Develop Next Generation Hierarchical Routing Protocol
7. Engineer for Maximum Long Term Growth and Stability
8. Engineer Growth of Internet to Match IP Routing Capability
9. ......
n. ......
As implied by the poster, it is impossible to design a system that runs
full speed, consumes minimal energy, rarely breaks, everyone can afford, and
is compatible with all previous and future makes and models, and makes
everyone happy.
It is my claim that there is an illusion that 1 and 2 and 5 are the
highest priorities (and that appears to be the way many WGs operate;
and on who's mandate ? ). If 1,2 and 5 are indeed the ultimate goals
of today, driven by normal mercantile commercial interests; then the
leadership (whomever they are) might help us all out by "stepping
up to the plate" and leading with clear goals and priorities,
all things considered.
BTW:
As many might infer from these positions; I consider (1) to be a
problem. You cannot design an optimal, efficient technology
and maintain maximum possible growth. It simply cannot be done.
The two concepts are similar to an oxymoron. There is a wider,
broader agenda to consider, not the dioramic goals that individual
businesses and groups advocate.
Regards,
Tim
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Bass | |
| Principal Network Systems Engineer | "Every decoding is another |
| The Silk Road Group, Ltd. | encoding.." |
| | |
| http://www.silkroad.com/ | David Lodge |
| | |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
