Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
tli at cisco.com
Sat Jan 27 03:42:33 UTC 1996
hard to understand is why men and women with intelligent brains believe
that there is only ' one way, one religion' to do hierarchical routing.
What's REALLY hard to believe is that we STILL haven't gotten through to
you. No one is telling you that there is one way and one religion. That's
what you, in your conspiracy theory, would like to believe, but it's simply
We are quite certain that there ARE other ways of doing routing. But they
are not yet implementable. There is a LOT of work to be done to bring a
new routing architecture to full deployment. It has not happened yet.
You would be much better served by spending the time to refine and bring
one of these to implementability than you will by continuing to stand up
and say that we refuse to listen to you.
I apologize for repeating myself, but we would love to have something
better. Until such an architecture gets sufficiently refined that it can
migrate from theoretical journals (or, in the case of Nimrod, theoretical
Noelgrams ;-) to something that we can actually code up, you should not
expect to see any serious interest in implementation.
Unlike certain other working groups, if we do not have a working product on
time, there are certain extremely serious ramifications. We cannot simply
say "stop the Internet while we figure this out". For one, those of us in
commercialdom would immediately be in an Unemployment line. ;-) Or the
morgue after the user revolt.
I strongly encourage you to continue your study of the problem. I further
encourage you to participate in the IRTF and with the other routing
theorists (you know the group) who are actively interested in these issues.
And I further encourage you to take some time to understand the harsh
engineering realities that we face. And I finally encourage you to find a
better platform for your discussions than these highly inappropriate
Back to my code,
More information about the NANOG