20402 routing entries
Martin Lee Schoffstall
schoff at us.psi.com
Fri Apr 15 22:34:15 UTC 1994
> If the return on routing entry (RORE) is large enough no one is going to
> particularly upset if mega-corp sends in a routing entry. The place
> to get gain is at the tiny places (my home for example with a subnet with
> a tiny number of hosts).
We have a solution for that, we call it an InternetRelay, they are part
and parcel of what we are deploying on cable. Surprise!
> >>> "Give me your network number, by such and such a date, or I turn you off"
> As I suggested in my note this is too strict a position to take. I
> suspect that PSI like most providers work with their customers, and
> could facilitate this kind of transition over time. The issue is to
> get from the current state to a better state. I am not unwilling to
> consider larger routers, hierarchy prudently applied, renumbering,
> etc. Why limit yourself when you have real problems to solve.
> The implication that I am gratuitously suggesting renumbering without
> solving a real problem is incorrect. If everything was going just
> right, the topic would not come up.
And while your fording the stream with your tanks to
liberate those shackled by RevisionistDemocrats
you accidently crush
ten civilians and your 120mm gun goes off and you take out the town
Hospital. "I'm sorry, I'm from the government, I'm here to help". Basically
you can cause more problems than you are solving with your current tac.
> If we figure out how to do this without any hierarchy as you seem to imply
> would be desirable, then I hope the vendors build routers big enough to
> hold routes to all the telephone outlets in China. We need some abstraction
> and CIDR simply carries the IP subnetting model out to its logical
> conclusion. The thought that we can eliminate all hierarchy is as silly
> as demanding a strictly hierarchical system.
I'm not eliminating all hierarchy, I'm arguing (at least) mixed mode,
and of course no renumbering.
> Let's not confuse CIDR with renumbering. CIDR is to get reasonable
> routing handles on "places" in the Internet. In some cases this will
> be a 30 bit long prefix identifying a single host on a LAN and in some
> cases it will be the prefix to all the IP systems in Mozambique.
> Appropriate prefixes to meet routing requirements. I think this fits your
> notion of a non-deterministic path.
If you think the current IP is going to deal with China then you have
lost sight of what are reasonable design goals.
Start again with new white paper.
Don't saddle the current IP with
totalitarian-administered CIDR to reach that goal.
More information about the NANOG