[178637] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (manning bill)
Sun Mar 1 17:51:41 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
From: manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4EDACA29-A706-447B-BD92-A1ED9C88CC41@virtualized.org>
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2015 14:50:57 -0800
To: David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org>
X-MailScanner-From: bmanning@isi.edu
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Frank was the most vocal=85
the biggest cidr deployment issue was hardware vendors with =93baked-in=94=
assumptions about addressing. IPv6 is doing the same thing with its =
/64 nonsense.
/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102
On 1March2015Sunday, at 13:37, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>>> It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and
>>>> bandwidth caps.
>>>=20
>>> let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a =
thing
>>> since the very early 1990s. Otherwise why would cidr have been =
created?
>>=20
>> CIDR had nothing to do with address scarcity.
>=20
> Untrue.
>=20
> CIDR was created in response to the proliferation of "class Cs" being =
allocated instead of "class Bs". The reason class Cs were being =
allocated instead of class Bs was due to projections (I believe by Frank =
Solensky and/or Noel Chiappa) that showed we would exhaust the Class B =
pool by 1990 or somesuch. This led to the ALE (Address Lifetime =
Extensions) and CIDRD working groups that pushed for the allocation of =
blocks of class Cs instead of Class Bs.
>=20
> CIDR also allowed for more appropriately sized blocks to be allocated =
instead of one-size-fits-most of class Bs. This increased address =
utilization which likely extended the life of the IPv4 free pool.
>=20
> Regards,
> -drc
>=20
