nanog mailing list archives
Re: 20402 routing entries
From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg () ripe net>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 14:41:11 +0200
Peter & Yakov, the only carrot/stick combination that is going to work is to charge for announcements - period. Make a charging scheme that punishes many small announcements out-of provider block announcements Convince the big transit providers to implement it and it will percolate downwards. This has some problems too but is the only carrot/stick combination that will work better than just convincing people to be good citizens. Daniel Speaking for myself only > "Peter S. Ford" <peter () goshawk lanl gov> writes: > > > Marty, > > >a bit less than 28,000 currently configured "Internet" network > >numbres believe they have permanently gained their class B's and > >C's. Or at least the ones in the US believe that. > > > >a bit less than all assigned network numbers total believe that > >they have gained their class B's and C's and will never give up > >and renumber > > > >You have provided no incentive (carrot) for individual companies > >to do the right thing. > > Let us try to answer your question with another question: > > Do you want a routable large scale global Internet ? > > It is hard to imagine supporting a truly huge Internet without relying > on hierarchical routing (CIDR is simply a realization of > hierarchical routing). > > And if you do plan to rely on hierarchical routing, then you need to > understand how to deal with the issue of containing address entropy > (due to switching among providers) without renumbering. It seems naive > and perhaps irresponsible to think about flat routing (based on network > numbers). It should be a goal to make this renumbering simple. > > We'd like to suggest that folks with alternative proposals to CIDR > should put their alternative proposals on a table and explain, among > other things, how their proposals would be deployed and used and how > these proposals would be better than CIDR. Hitting the right time > frame turns out to count! > > > When people got network numbers in the past they were getting addresses > for the research Internet. It is important to understand that the > research Internet was a great thing, but we are now working on the > global public Internet and we desperately needed new routing and addressing > > systems. We should establish that we are in a transition from the > research Internet to the global public Internet and we subsequently > can not just use uncoordinated IP addresses and still have a workable > system. This is not dissimilar to what happened when local phone > exchanges started to get interconnected during the advent of long > distance telephone services. There needs to be a globally coordinated > address space to make this work. Reasoning by analogy with the phone syste > m > is a powerful argument. People change phone numbers all the time, they > don't absolutely revolt because the phone system is so valuable. > Some elect to get 700 numbers, but they *PAY* for this service. > > We suggest the following subjects be carefully considered: > > The old addresses of the research Internet need to be reorganized > into the global public Internet addressing plan which is based > on CIDR. > > Those addresses not currently globally routed will not be > routed. These new customers of the Internet should get > their addresses from their immediate providers. > (This could be softened if there is a commitment by the > customer to enter into the transition ASAP). This also > would cover the case of provider switching under CIDR. > > Those addresses that are currently routed will *eventually* > be migrated to CIDR allocations. This may take some time, > on the order of years (2-5). We could look for the > simple cases first (small/tiny sites). > > It is not fair to get people to renumber when they attach to > the Internet when they see that people already attached > are just sitting pretty. We need to be consistent in the > application of standards and rules. > > Marty has brought up the subject of a carrot: > > The carrot is getting global Internet routing. > > The stick is not getting global Internet routing. > > It is a dull and boring argument, but it is the core of the debate. > There is extreme value in what we are trying to build with the global publi > c > Internet, and we need to impress on the customer base that we need > their help to make it possible to achieve our goals. > > We are not saying this is going to be easy, but it is rare that something > worth having comes for free. > > Peter & Yakov > > P.S. The number of uncoordinated IP addresses is higher than 30K. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: 20402 routing entries, (continued)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Martin Lee Schoffstall (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Peter S. Ford (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Martin Lee Schoffstall (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Peter S. Ford (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Martin Lee Schoffstall (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Peter S. Ford (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Martin Lee Schoffstall (Apr 18)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Dennis Ferguson (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Martin Lee Schoffstall (Apr 15)
- 20402 routing entries Tony Li (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Daniel Karrenberg (Apr 16)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Bob Hinden (Apr 17)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Martin Lee Schoffstall (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Jessica Yu (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Martin Lee Schoffstall (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Pushpendra Mohta (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries Steven J. Richardson (Apr 15)