Re: Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

[manning bill <bmanning () isi edu>]

Frank was the most vocal…

the biggest cidr deployment issue was hardware vendors with “baked-in” assumptions about addressing.  IPv6 is doing the 
same thing with its /64 nonsense.

/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102

On 1March2015Sunday, at 13:37, David Conrad <drc () virtualized org> wrote:

> > On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
> >
> > > > It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and
> > > > bandwidth caps.
> > >
> > > let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a thing
> > > since the very early 1990s.  Otherwise why would cidr have been created?
> >
> > CIDR had nothing to do with address scarcity.
>
> Untrue.
>
> CIDR was created in response to the proliferation of "class Cs" being allocated instead of "class Bs". The reason 
> class Cs were being allocated instead of class Bs was due to projections (I believe by Frank Solensky and/or Noel 
> Chiappa) that showed we would exhaust the Class B pool by 1990 or somesuch.  This led to the ALE (Address Lifetime 
> Extensions) and CIDRD working groups that pushed for the allocation of blocks of class Cs instead of Class Bs.
>
> CIDR also allowed for more appropriately sized blocks to be allocated instead of one-size-fits-most of class Bs. This 
> increased address utilization which likely extended the life of the IPv4 free pool.
>
> Regards,
> -drc