Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: PI vs PA Address Space
From: "Karl Denninger, MCSNet" <karl () mcs com>
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 15:22:21 -0500 (CDT)

Eventually routers stopped being able to handle full routing
in 16Mb of memory, and suddenly the very real cost of
carrying routing information around became clear to a number
of providers: how much did replacing a bunch of mostly-AGS+
routers with 64Mb Cisco 7000-series routers cost?

This memory jump has occured more than once.  I remember 4 and 8 meg
routers.  16 meg boxen were deamed large enough when they were created.
The leap to 64 is just another step in the process.

nothing longer than /18 or /19 (it's /18 now, but it's
not entirely inflexible, and dialogues continue) will 
have global scope.

As an aside, is anyone else besides Sprint behind this /18
model?  I know that Sean is a big proponent but I have heard
no other public comment on this. (well there was one, which
indicated that the community had reached consenses on this point,
which is why I ask.)


--bill

My commentary?

These people are NUTS.

I do not, and will not, get behind this /18 model for EXISTING addresses.

If someone wishes to put this forward for FUTURE assignments, and give us a
cut-over date which we can announce to customers (prospective and current)
then I might support THAT.

This proposal, implemented retroactively, serves to promote monopoly and
tying arrangements to a particular provider, is not in the public interest,
violates the assumptions and *statements* made by many over the last several
years, and if undertaken as a collusive effort may spawn anti-trust 
and restraint of trade litigation.

For these reason I believe it is *highly* ill advised to attempt to 
retroactively change the disposition of all the Class "C"s that have
previously been delegated both from providers and directly from the Internic
itself.

BTW, in case it matters, one of our customers has ALREADY been bit by this
when they attempted to leave MCSNet and attach to Sprint with addresses
delegated from a netblock which Sprint assigned to us.  They were first
given incorrect information by Sprint's NOC personnell and then forced to
renumber not only their internal hosts, but their CUSTOMERS machines.  

Litigation was imminent in this case and very narrowly avoided.  Do we wish
to open pandora's box on this one?  

I say no way.

Put a cut over date and proposal forward for the FUTURE.  Do *NOT* attempt
to change, retroactively, the routability of addresses delegated over the
last "N" years or you are begging for more trouble than you can imagine.

--
--
Karl Denninger (karl () MCS Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
Modem: [+1 312 248-0900]     | (shell, PPP, SLIP, leased) in Chicagoland
Voice: [+1 312 248-8649]     | 7 POPs online through Chicago, all 28.8
Fax: [+1 312 248-9865]       | Email to "info () mcs net" for more information
ISDN: Surf at Smokin' Speed  | WWW: http://www.mcs.net, gopher: gopher.mcs.net


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]