nanog mailing list archives

Re: 20402 routing entries


From: "Martin Lee Schoffstall" <schoff () us psi com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 17:38:16 -0400


In YOUR Internet you believe in name based portability.

That is NOT what the people who have those numbers believe.

You are confusing the technology vs the reality of the marketplace.

That is not to say that you can't turn on your propaganda machine and
make everyone believe that Comrade Peter is a friend of all Internet children.

CIDR with masks defeats the substantial purpose's that you are selling
CIDR to solve, I can't wait to see the processing impact of the
increasingly sparse matrix's you are pushing.  Not that I have heard
anyone buy into it yet though.

Marty

PS:  He was a red head.  I think i'm casting myself as Medevev in this
        context.
---------
Marty,

In the Internet we believe the issue will be name based portability, not
address portability.  This level of decoupling will permit the 
functionality of portable 800 numbers.  +1 800 I-LIKE-IP is simply a name 
which the telephone company maps to something which which they in 
turn route to.

It is important not to confuse naming with routing and packet forwarding.  

It is also important to note that CIDR is based on mask and match so 
it is not exclusively  hierarchical as you imply.    It allows
for a mixture of flat and  hierarchical routing, as the need arises.
This must be true since today the Internet exhibits both flat uncoordinated
addresses and hierarchically assigned addresses.  We seem to be able to 
route them in together.

CIDR allows you to dial in the level of hierarchy you need.  This seems to 
be sound architecturally.

cheers, Comrades Peter and Yakov

P.S.  I always like the way you color our debates  in ideological terms, I 
really enjoy  picturing you in a Jeffersonian Wig.  -- pf 
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Current thread: