larger space was: Re: [NIC-....

Tim Bass (@NANOG-LIST) nanog at dune.silkroad.com
Fri Feb 16 04:38:00 UTC 1996


Paul kindly replies:

> 
> And as several people have already stated [deja vu, many times over],
> this draft, if moved to BCP, has no teeth. It simply states that the
> idea of address ownership is null and void, and Joe's ISP decides to
> pull up stakes and move to another upstream provider [B] for whatever
> reason, Joe should not be surprised when his [A] provider asks him
> to return his address allocation so that its doesn't punch holes in
> his CIDR block.
> 
> This makes sense to me.
> 
> - paul
> 

Granted, CIDR space from ISPs allocated by ISPs to users should be
stated in the services contract to be on loan from the ISP for 
services.

On the other hand, address space allocated by a registry (US NIC,
European RIPE, etc.) and announced by an ISP do not 'punch holes'
in classless blocks and were assigned to the user.   Furthermore,
there will *never* be a 100 percent efficient hierarchical routing
infrastructure; and the atmosphere to create it is destructive
and counterproductive.

Thanks for a reasonable reply, BTW; especially on an issue that tends
to supercede logic and reason and stimulate emotion and conflict.

Tim

(The Heretic)


+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Tim Bass                           |                                   |
| Principal Network Systems Engineer | "... the fates of men are bonded  |
| The Silk Road Group, Ltd.          |  one to the other by the cement   |
|                                    |  of wisdom."                      |
| http://www.silkroad.com/           |                Milan Kundera      |
|                                    |				         |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+





More information about the NANOG mailing list