larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
pferguso at cisco.com
Fri Feb 16 12:22:09 UTC 1996
At 11:38 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Tim 'The Heretic' Bass wrote:
>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
I agree that address allocations that originated from the various
registries pose a different problem, for which there is no clear-cut
solution. I imagine that the various ISPs will decide how to handle
it themselves, as some already do.
Again, we're [collectively] not trying to dictate address allocation or
routing policy. What we *are* trying to do is document a Best Current
Practices procedural issue, which can be used as reference. If some
organizations wish to use it as a basis for policy, that's fine too.
I'm not naive enough to believe that this draft, as a BCP, will be
viewed as the end-all-be-all policy doctrine, and that if you as an
ISP or end-system network do not adhere to the letter of the document
you will be flogged with a wet noodle. Bah.
This draft simply documents the rationale and reasoning for 'address
lending' instead of 'ownership', and why address portability is no
longer a luxury that can be expected.
Yes, it may be unpopular. Does it actually represent 'Best Current
Practice'? I believe it does. Should it instead be moved ahead as
'Informational'? I don't believe so, as Curtis and others do, since
it would then give the appearance of levity.
More information about the NANOG