Comments on draft-ietf-cidrd-ownership-01.txt
dcrocker at brandenburg.com
Thu Aug 24 15:30:40 UTC 1995
I see that you copied all of the lists. In my original posting to
them I requested that discussion move to the cidrd mailing list. Folks
should send to majordomo at iepg.org and have subscribe cidrd in the body.
I request that you and other responders follow up to cidrd (after
reading my retort...)
In reply to your message stating:
> addressing. It then, incorrectly, asserts that the Internet topology
>Well, in fact it says that "the topology of the network is not strictly
The statement in the ownership draft you quote is an afterthought
completely offset by the bulk of the draft. My comments draft mentions
that quote (and dismisses it.) Please re-read both documents more
>You appear to have missed the distinction between a hierarchical topology, and
>an address hierarchy. One can apply hierarchical addressing to a perfectly
No, that's exactly what CIDR has gotten wrong. It uses an
imaginary topological hierarchy to define the address hierarchy. As a
result of this confusion it handles multi-homing in a fashion which does
not scale and which requires users and intermediate providers to renumber
every time they change suppliers. How would YOU like to change phone
numbers every time you change long-distance carriers?
>The point remains that use of hierarchical addressing is the *only* way known
Noel, I LIKE hierarchical addressing. The problem is with the
current choice of hierarchy made by cidr.
>that an addressing hierarchy that is loosely isomorphic to the connectivity
Too loose for comfort, Noel. Our pants are starting to fall down.
>Renumbering is indeed painful. However, given past decisions, no other option
CIDR was chosen, yes. Consideration of alternatives was
terminated. After initial success, CIDR is now failing. The Leasing
proposal is part of an effort to save cidr, but at the expense of
intolerable effects on much/most of the Internet's participants. Time to
review the alternatives. Multi-homing and renumbering issues make cidr
just as experimental as the alternatives. Hmmm. Perhaps not. We KNOW
cidr has show-stopping problems.
> It is time to consider alternatives to CIDR.
>Unfortunately, it's too late to consider alternatives. The Internet has a real
>problem with routing table growth. To get something organized (since the
Noel, this was the claim 3 years ago, too. It's time to stop
letting that line of crisis abuse be used on the community. We need to
focus on finding a mechanism that works.
> After some considerable initial success it is proving inadequate.
>No, it's perfectly adequate, just painful. However, no other tool is available
The effect of the requirement for large-scale and REPEATED
renumbering is considerably worse than just painful. The failure to handle
large-scale multi-homing is considerably worse than just painful.
Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205
675 Spruce Dr. page: +1 408 581 1174
Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA dcrocker at brandenburg.com
More information about the NANOG