[303] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CIDR FAQ
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Simon Poole)
Wed Aug 16 14:02:22 1995
From: poole@eunet.ch (Simon Poole)
To: yakov@cisco.com (Yakov Rekhter)
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 1995 19:49:31 +0200 (MET DST)
Cc: paul@vix.com, tli@cisco.com, peter@demon.net, 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, yakov@cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <199508161507.IAA25844@hubbub.cisco.com> from "Yakov Rekhter" at Aug 16, 95 08:07:48 am
Yakov writes:
> The most serious problem we're facing is NOT how to route to the existing
> allocations, but how we're going to route to all the new allocations that are
> due to the exponential growth of the Internet.
From this and an earlier mail (somewhere you said we should "deploy CIDR")
I sense some kind of fundamental problem in this discussion.
From -my- point of view CIDR -is- deployed:
- we've been allocating from provider blocks for probably two
years now, and the number of prefixes announced has been
growing -very- slowly (with respect to -new- allocation
of addresses), even with customers not returning their addresses
when they leave us. Do you have -any- hard data that anything
else is happening at a global scale?
- there is naturally a tendency for the provider address space
to fragment over time, however do we have -any- data that this
is causing any of the problems we are seeing (it surely isn't
creating a large increase in prefixes -now-)?
- nearly -all- of the prefixes we announce are pre-CIDR allocations
(B and quite a large number of C's (that we are trying to clean
up)), I don't believe this to be different with any other ISP.
Yakov, if you have data that CIDR is -not- working for new allocations
please present it here.
Simon
