Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
curtis at ans.net
Thu Feb 1 06:19:29 UTC 1996
In message <m0thjaK-000NizC at aero.branch.com>, Jon Zeeff writes:
> All this discussion seems to be about work arounds for the real
> problem. Namely, that the current hardware/software/protocols
> can't handle what is actually a small number of routes.
Absolutely. The problem stems from inadequate foresight on the part
of router vendors and providers being unable to sufficiently influence
router designs so that the needs of high end providers are met. There
isn't a whole lot of viable choices at the high end.
> Restricting announcements of new routes should be one of the last
> things considered.
I fully agree. It was one of the last things considered.
Quite a while ago on this list it was pointed out that address leasing
and coerced renumbering (its coming down to forced) was something we
wanted to prepare the community for but that we were hoping to avoid.
It might be that better routers and/or better methods of configuring
aggregation help take some of the pressure off and change things back
from "forced renumbering" to "encouraged renumbering". That hasn't
> Here is one - for whatever reasons, we have a provider who can't seem
> to correctly announce an aggregate and instead, announces several
> specifics. Nobody says anything about this inefficiency - not to us or
> to them. Some automated process watching for things like this and
> sending an advisory email might help quite a bit.
Tony Bates used to do this and send it to the list. Its not as if no
one has thought of this.
More information about the NANOG