20402 routing entries

Peter S. Ford peter at goshawk.lanl.gov
Fri Apr 15 23:12:32 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).

>>> "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.

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.

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. 

cheers, peter

More information about the NANOG mailing list