[28704] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CIDR Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Danny McPherson)
Sat May 13 16:48:46 2000
Message-Id: <200005132047.OAA11928@tcb.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
From: Danny McPherson <danny@tcb.net>
Reply-To: danny@tcb.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 14:47:29 -0600
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> None of these are big enough to justify their own backbone operations or to
> buy a backbone from someone else, or there wouldn't be a problem. Paying scads
> of extortion money is also problematic (cheaper to simply burn the IP addresses).
>
> I am NOT advocating tossing all of that out. I am simply bringing up a
> problem condition. Please, don't shoot the messenger, or otherwise get
> defensive (return fire is a bitch).
Nope, all of these are reasonable, the ones that aren't are, for example,
where folks have a single connection, or multi-home only to a single provider.
> What I am bringing up here is that new, information-age companies,
> as predicted in MegaTrends over 10 years ago, are now starting to
> appear. They are very diffused (sparse population, over very large
> areas of the globe) and have connectivity needs which are both critical,
> yet very different from click-n-morter customers that the Big8 was
> built up to handle (either classful or classless). The current architecture
> is not handeling them very well.
>
> The problem is currently in it's infancy, it will get much worse.
I'm not disagreeing with any of this. Actually, I see reliability and
availability feeding into all these other issues as well.
It just that some of the folks advocating portability and deaggregation are
using "route table size doesn't matter anymore" as an argument, when it
absolutely does matter, especially if we plan to make the Internet more
reliable, and less vulnerable.
-danny
