mailing list archives
Re: Sprint violations (setting space aside for slow-start allocations)
From: Sean Doran <smd () icp net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 16:12:45 -0400
Good points. You also join the registries in making
one of the two very persuasive arguments in favour of
relaxing (perhaps some, perhaps all) of 220.127.116.11/8 by
one bit, to allow in /19s.
Slow-start is a good idea, and we have the RIPE /19
legacy to prove it. Now we need to look at whether this
can be done with /18s without exhausting IPv4 too soon,
as there are some real concerns about doubling the maximum
number of prefixes many routers will see.
I also see no problem about working out case-by-case
arrangements for putting holes into our filters in the
future, taking everybody's various costs into consideration.
| If Sprint is not doing a good job of aggregating its announcements,
| filter them, eventually they'll get around to aggregating everything
| they can.
There certainly is some aggregation that should be
done downstream from Sprint. We try to encourage people
to aggregate what they can aggregate, but some outside
pressure to do so probably would help...
| So how about agreeing on pools of address space for small allocations?
I think you found a good topic!
- Re: Sprint violations (setting space aside for slow-start allocations) Sean Doran (Sep 21)