[1550] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Peter Galbavy)
Fri Jan 26 06:46:10 1996
To: Tim Bass <nanog@dune.silkroad.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:17:43 +0000 (GMT)
From: Peter Galbavy <peter@demon.net>
Cc: smd@sprint.net, Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net, nanog@merit.edu,
forrestc@imach.com, cidrd@iepg.org, iab@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu,
iana@isi.edu, local-ir@ripe.net, tli@cisco.com, bass@dune.silkroad.com
In-Reply-To: <199601251727.MAA21204@dune.silkroad.com> from "Tim Bass" at Jan 25, 96 12:27:16 pm
> Since my name was mentioned by Sean without provocation, please allow
> me to respond briefly:
And I don't know you - so don't take this one personally either :-)
> Instead of emotional overtones and name calling,
> isn't it prudent to examine all hierarchical routing paradigms,
> generate stochastic models, and determine the optimal way to
> perform hierarchical routing (and try to avoid problematic practical
> issues as well, which BTW are important ).
>
> Hierarchical routing *does not* necessarily translate to "the BGP4,
> CIDR development path forever"; but for some reason that I cannot
> explain (and that Sean quips to be "the conspiracy theory" by us
> engineering skeptics and CIDR heretics) the "world" refuses to take any
> other hierarchical routing architectures seriously (and many
> are plausible and feasible if implemented, someone just kindly
> faxed me another one, BTW).
>
> CIDR aggregation is a flawed paradigm for long term growth of
> the global infrastructure (and most of the engineers seem to
> roughly agree, IMO); yet we, as technologists, are driven by the
> forces of commerce to "expand the Internet as fast as possible,
> keep the growth curve high, grow, grow, grow" mantra; and
> accept that "we'll just have to be satisfied with band-aid,
> "change the wings in flight" engineering.
Hierarchical routeing is a flawed paradigm as well. CIDR is even more
flawed, but it works at the moment. CIDR really only works if the
block allocated are actually routed geographically. As a provider
our primary Internet links outside of the UK are all the the USA.
We, however, *have* to come to RIPE for "European" address space.
When RIPE starts offering *free* routeing to the world using the top level
CIDR blocks, then I will agree that CIDR works.
I cannot accept that we have to >beg< RIPE like a good little provider
for address space that should be allocated to us from the USA anyway.
I will be interested to see how the RIPE actually works (and not just
listening to Daniel dictate policy by e-mail) when I go to my first RIPE
meeting next week. So far it seems like a bureaucracy that is entirely
self perpetuating and self interested without consider what the people
who pay for its very existance want. sigh. Just like an unelected
government in fact.
Back to the "technical" discussion:
I think the hierarchical routeing is one step *worse* than the above.
The address *defines* the route the packets take ? What about the real,
live multi-interconnect, multi-homed Internet we use ? Maybe I have
misunderstood the way IPv6 addressing works...
> When this thead started, I was determined to stay on the sidelines,
> and avoid such a wide audience; but since I was mentioned directly
> in a reply, it seems appropriate to post a short clarifiation,
> thank your for understanding.
Hard to do, staying in the background when discussing quite emotive
"religious" issues.
Regards,
--
Peter Galbavy peter@demon.net
@ Demon Internet phone://44/181/371_3700
http://www.wonderland.org/~peter/
snail://UK/N3_1TT/London/42_Hendon_Lane/Demon_Internet_Ltd/
