[1554] in North American Network Operators' Group
Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Karrenberg)
Fri Jan 26 08:18:42 1996
To: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@iepg.org, iab@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu, iana@isi.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 25 Jan 1996 18:25:17 PST.
<199601260225.SAA12402@greatdane.cisco.com>
From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 14:01:19 +0100
> Tony Li <tli@cisco.com> writes:
>
> I disagree. With efficient, careful allocation and aggregation, there is
> no reason to suppose that we cannot have address space efficiency and
> compact routing tables. Yes, it is challenging to do so. But the goals
> are not contradictory.
I disagee, when making concrete assignment/allocation decisions in the
current world, the goals of address space conservation and rouing
aggregation very frequently suggest very different things.
This is *not* only caused by current policies but much more significantly
by things like business interests, the lack of renumbering technologies
... ... ....
Given all that, one can try to find good compromises (that is what
engineering is as opposed to science) but one cannot reconcile these
goals completely or even nearly so.
Daniel
