NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
freedman at netaxs.com
Thu Apr 4 14:42:58 UTC 1996
> On Wed, 3 Apr 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:
> > sooner or later we will have to kill off the /24's, which make up 70% of
> > the routing table but offer way less than 10% of the total reachable
> > destinations. perhaps now that address ownership has been put to bed,
> > the gang of big providers can agree on a date after which they will all
> > stop listening to or exporting any prefixes longer than /23? THAT would
> > be the incentive the industry needs to look at private addressing and
> > aggressive renumbering. who's willing to risk collusion lawsuits and
> > lost customers? step right up and sign the register please.
If that happens, at least some businesspeople who read articles or the 'net
will simply start demanding /23s and will shop around until they find someone
willing to give one to them, even if they have 2 hosts.
> I'm not sure if this is the most completely wrong place to ask this
> question, so please forgive me if it is, but I'm not sure where else
> to ask it...
> As someone who's about to renumber a public school district from a /24
> to something else, what would be the smallest network to get (from
> InterNIC) that would pretty much be guaranteed to be routed for the next
> few years? I'm thinking a /22 at the moment, but am not sure.
Unless they have a real plan & need to get about 128 buildings full of
100 machines/building online, it's a lost cause. You already need a
/18 to be heard from Sprint in >= 207/8. Unless you're a customer of
But Sprint/Sean's position is that other providers should do the same
thing (filter on routes in new address space to preserve status quo but
stomp on the growth of the announcement of routes which are "not worth"
the expense vs. reachability tradeoff of being inserted in every router
with "full routes").
> -Sven Nielsen
More information about the NANOG