PI vs PA Address Space

Michael F. Nittmann nittmann at wis.com
Fri May 19 22:59:43 UTC 1995

the proposal comes from a provider that cannot route around a cable cut 
for now more than 24h.


On Fri, 19 May 1995 peter at swan.lanl.gov wrote:

> >>> As an aside, is anyone else besides Sprint behind this /18
> >>> model?
> The hard core /18 model ("we won't accept prefixes greater than length
> 18") is untenable and throws out one of CIDR's features.  It does not
> allow for a time period where a customer is migrating from provider A
> to provider B and will have end systems living within both provider
> based prefixes at any instant during the migration.  
> The user community should not be forced into flash cuts, and the
> providers can make the needed overlap period of time work for bounded
> time frames.  
> At a minimum, the model needs to be /18+E (E==entropy due to customer
> migrations).
> peter

Michael F. Nittmann                                             nittmann at wis.com
Network Architect						nittmann at b3.com 
B3 Corporation, Marshfield, WI (CIX Member)               (715) 387 1700 xt. 158
US Cyber (SM), Washington DC				  (715) 573 2448
							  (715) 831 7922

More information about the NANOG mailing list