nanog mailing list archives
Re: CIDR FAQ
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov () cisco com>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 13:09:52 PDT
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.
Current thread:
- Re: CIDR FAQ, (continued)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Simon Poole (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Tony Li (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Yakov Rekhter (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Curtis Villamizar (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Tony Li (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Yakov Rekhter (Aug 17)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Simon Poole (Aug 16)
- Message not available
- Re: CIDR FAQ Eliot Lear (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Arnold Nipper (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Paul A Vixie (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Yakov Rekhter (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ bmanning (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Randy Bush (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Jon Zeeff (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Yakov Rekhter (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Paul Traina (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ peter (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Tony Li (Aug 16)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Dave Siegel (Aug 15)
- Re: CIDR FAQ Nicolas Williams (Aug 15)