[309] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: CIDR FAQ
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Yakov Rekhter)
Wed Aug 16 16:29:40 1995
To: Paul A Vixie <paul@vix.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu, yakov@cisco.com
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 16 Aug 95 12:29:31 PDT."
<9508161929.AA15376@wisdom.home.vix.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 13:09:52 PDT
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
Paul,
> New allocations are (as of 1466bis) being done through providers, on CIDRized
> lines. Whether IPv4 or IPv6, new allocations are not going to badly impact
> the core routing table size.
Does that mean that all the internet registries no longer allocate
/24 (or longer) prefixes that have nothing to do with the actual
Internet topology (these prefixes aka "portable addresses") ? Perhaps
folks from various Internet registries would be able to answer this
question.
> I've seen no evidence that IPv6 addresses will be allocated on anything other
> than CIDR lines. There are crackpots who think otherwise, but there are alwa
ys
> crackpots.
Current IPv6 address allocation documents *explicitly* allow for
non-provider based allocations. What makes you to think that such
allocations would *not* be used.
> CIDR works.
CIDR works as long as addresses are assigned in a topologically
significant fashion. And this precondition is crucial.
Yakov.
