[289] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CIDR FAQ
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (peter@demon.net)
Wed Aug 16 04:27:14 1995
From: peter@demon.net
To: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 09:13:10 +0100 (BST)
Cc: nathan@netrail.net, dsiegel@net99.net, jon@branch.com, sob@academ.com,
bwatson@mci.net, jerry@fc.net, inet-access@earth.com,
HANK@taunivm.tau.ac.il, nanog@merit.edu, local-ir@ripe.net,
iap@vma.cc.nd.edu
In-Reply-To: <199508160017.RAA26032@greatdane.cisco.com> from "Tony Li" at Aug 15, 95 05:17:29 pm
> That's why we want to deploy CIDR. So we're not caught in this
> bind...
That's back to the mainstream discussion now. I would hope we all
realise that CIDR is a sticking plaster and not the ultimate solution
to the possible problems in the future ? I am certainly of that mind,
and I think that "the CIDR working group" and all of us out here
should not become the "Cisco workaround comittee".
If you router is non-expandable then bitch to your supplier, be they
Cisco, Bay, the-guy-down-the-road-in-the-garage - anyone.
BTW - I have not studied the RFC's - so what will IPv6 do for us in
the contect of routeing aggregation and latger boxes etc ?
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/
