number of unaggregated class C's in swamp?
William Allen Simpson
bsimpson at morningstar.com
Fri Sep 29 21:51:04 UTC 1995
> From: Michael Dillon <michael at junction.net>
> On Fri, 29 Sep 1995, Mark Kent wrote:
> > Announce now that by Oct 1, 1996 no individual /24 will be routed.
> This is a reasonable timetable.
> > Filter 204/24 and 205/24 on Oct 31, 1995
> > Filter 202/24 and 203/24 on Nov 30, 1995
> This is not!
> The great bulk of the world, especially management types, gets their
> technical news with a 4 to 6 month time delay from glossy technical
> magazines. This delay is due to the time required for writers to
I want to thank Mark Kent, and disagree with Michael Dillon.
Last April, folks at IETF stood in the front of the room and said they
were going to start reducing the prefixes. I heard within a _month_!
Now, it has been 6 months. We've already had plenty of time for the
news magazines to print and management types to absorb the news.
Some competent providers have already informed their customers that they
need to renumber, have already started planning, and are actually
Others are not so competent. Time to announce to them that we're sorry,
but unless they pay out lots of money to upgrade their competitors and
fund the research, their competitors aren't going to accept their /24
routes anymore. We are all in this together.
Now, the pier wg is trying to help put together a list of OS's and
pin-pointing "how to" work through renumbering. That should help.
But there's no time like the present to get on with doing it!
The only difference I'd make is to _START_ with 192, not end there. We
get a lot more bang for the buck there, as renumbering will help
aggregate both continentally and regionally, and also free up badly
managed space for the future.
That nice table from Dennis was an eye-opener (just what I was looking
Bill.Simpson at um.cc.umich.edu
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
More information about the NANOG