[615] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: number of unaggregated class C's in swamp?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Dillon)
Sat Sep 30 02:00:54 1995
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 1995 23:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
From: Michael Dillon <michael@junction.net>
To: Noel Chiappa <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
cc: bsimpson@morningstar.com, dennis@mci.net, cidrd@iepg.org,
jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <9509300303.AA19974@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
On Fri, 29 Sep 1995, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> I agree, but the latter does have the advantage of being easier to "police".
> Getting a whole address block under a limit requires the cooperation of
> everyone in the block, whereas filters (as we have seen) are easy to impose...
But may cause a lot of grief in the legal department. If N routes per
block is a goal, not a hard and fast limit, then a sign that the goal is
met will be when the Internet is using M /8 blocks and there are M * N
routes. This could very well mean that providers are negotiating to allow
N + 400 routes in one block in return for using N - 400 routes in another
block.
I think it is better to specify the goal rather than to specify the means
of attaining that goal so that providers, customers, etc. have some choice.
Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
