[routing-wg] The Cidr Report

Bjoern A. Zeeb bzeeb-lists at lists.zabbadoz.net
Sun Oct 16 04:16:39 CDT 2011


On 15. Oct 2011, at 19:25 , Geoff Huston wrote:

> Does anyone give a s**t about this any more?

Yes, and if only to tell people that we could do a lot better if we'd care more
about the Net than .. (?)economics(?) ..?

I keep wondering if people generate more elaborated filters based on the overall
data to get down table sizes rather than saying >=/24 only or similar?

To me it reads as we'd still be below 256k then rather than close to 400k? Or more
realistically 300k-ish?  Anyone done any research how that would affect various
numbers in forwarding paths? *hide*


> From what I learned at the latest NANOG it's very clear that nobody reads this any more.

Read? Or act?

Where are the BNOsFH these days?


> Is there any good reason to persist in spamming the nanog list with this report?

A good reason would be to add the same damned thing for IPv6 as well to avoid
us starting with the same *beep* there already.  There was a great number of
noise in the table when I last looked myself (given it's been a longer while).

Now we want to encourage people to deploy IPv6 and not make it harder for them
but a lot of obstacles in policies from the very early days are gone these days
and could be cleaned up before it's too late and in addition if people roll it
out now, why not do it once and do it right from the beginning, but where's the
education on `eek not the same *beep* as with legacy IP again`, as some people
are trapped in BBCP (bad best current practices)?

Well I know you have it online, but polling a website is harder than getting
it delivered to the inbox every week;)

/bz

-- 
Bjoern A. Zeeb                                 You have to have visions!
         Stop bit received. Insert coin for new address family.


More information about the NANOG mailing list