20402 routing entries

Fri Apr 15 21:38:16 UTC 1994

In YOUR Internet you believe in name based portability.

That is NOT what the people who have those numbers believe.

You are confusing the technology vs the reality of the marketplace.

That is not to say that you can't turn on your propaganda machine and
make everyone believe that Comrade Peter is a friend of all Internet children.

CIDR with masks defeats the substantial purpose's that you are selling
CIDR to solve, I can't wait to see the processing impact of the
increasingly sparse matrix's you are pushing.  Not that I have heard
anyone buy into it yet though.

Marty

PS:  He was a red head.  I think i'm casting myself as Medevev in this
	context.
---------
> Marty,
> 
> In the Internet we believe the issue will be name based portability, not
> address portability.  This level of decoupling will permit the 
> functionality of portable 800 numbers.  +1 800 I-LIKE-IP is simply a name 
> which the telephone company maps to something which which they in 
> turn route to.
> 
> It is important not to confuse naming with routing and packet forwarding.  
> 
> It is also important to note that CIDR is based on mask and match so 
> it is not exclusively  hierarchical as you imply.    It allows
> for a mixture of flat and  hierarchical routing, as the need arises.
> This must be true since today the Internet exhibits both flat uncoordinated
> addresses and hierarchically assigned addresses.  We seem to be able to 
> route them in together.
> 
> CIDR allows you to dial in the level of hierarchy you need.  This seems to 
> be sound architecturally.
> 
> cheers, Comrades Peter and Yakov
> 
> P.S.  I always like the way you color our debates  in ideological terms, I 
> really enjoy  picturing you in a Jeffersonian Wig.  -- pf 