fighting cidr dead ending (was: RE: CIDR Report)

["Dmitri Krioukov" <dima () dimension net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> Roeland Meyer (E-mail)
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 3:31 PM
> To: 'brett watson'; nanog () merit edu
> Subject: RE: CIDR Report 
>
> Under the current system, what we are forced to do is either obtain a
> /24 for each location (even when there are <16 hosts there), or

so, basically we have this very common
and well understood situation that there
are some customers who do not require large
blocks but who want to see their small pi blocks
advertised and routable more or less everywhere
(if those blocks are pa, how many over there are
using the second option from rfc2260? if not that
many, what's wrong with that?). among these customers,
there is some portion, who may be educated that they do
not really need what they ask for. the other portion
either cannot be educated or does really need that. as
for "interim" :) solution, i cannot see much problem
(except significant coordination effort) in having
(regional) irs allocating blocks, from which longer
(than /24) prefixes would be acceptable even by verio.
this way, verio would be happy filtering all longer
prefixes except from these well-known blocks and the
address space wouldn't be wasted on the aforementioned
customers.

some tables may be even created matching allowed prefix
lengths and the well-known block(s) for them.
--
dima.