Curtis Villamizar curtis at
Thu Aug 17 17:06:17 UTC 1995

In message <199508170611.XAA19283 at>, Tony Li writes:
> To summarize:
> 	- We know we still have a bad problem.
> 	- We have end users who want "portable" addresses.
> 	- Some of them are actually getting them.
> 	- There are some ISP's who are not doing a reasonable job of
> 	  aggregation. 
> 	- We would like the ISP's to do a better job of aggregation.
> 	- "Portable" addresses, by definition, are not aggregateable.
> 	- If we can substantially reduce the number of "portable"
> 	  addresses which are assigned, then we can alleviate one
> 	  _clear_ cause of the problem.
> 	- Other measures are in place to encourage ISP's to aggregate.
> 	- Even more measures still remain to be developed.
> 	- Most of the Evil Greedy Bastards who espouse CIDR have done
> 	  a good job of aggregating already.
> Tony


This would be a good outline for an information RFC giving the status
of CIDR deployment.  CIDR deployment status is an important issue for
the Internet.  It is not well understood outside of the NANOG, IEPG,
CIDRD community (which are all the same people anyway).  With the move
to discourage portable addresses, CIDR deployment directly affects a
large body of users who don't understand the issues or the broader
picture.  These users might be less inclined toward accusations that
users are taking the brunt of the changes and twoard conspiracy
theories if the bigger CIDR deploymnent picture was more clearly
presented to them.


More information about the NANOG mailing list