Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

Christian Huitema huitema at pax.inria.fr
Mon Jan 29 09:40:34 UTC 1996

At 11:22 AM 26/1/96, Sean Doran wrote:
>|   > We just have some differences of philosophy -- you think
>|   > that RIPE really can persuade people into having only
>|   > 1024 announements (preferably far fewer) in 195/8, and
>|   > I don't.  That's all.
>| OK.  I call this a challenge but you won't let me try ;-).
>You and Randy Bush seem to be reading each other's minds.
>He has proposed this in a way that is very interesting,
>and which I will think about.
>There is a bad failure mode to consider that even a badge
>afterwards won't make any more attractive.
>Mostly it's "what on earth do we do if we cross the
>threshold of 1024 prefixes in 195/8?" to which I see no easy
>answer that doesn't involve inflict enormous pain on people
>with old, established long prefixes in 195/8.

There is at least one very simple response.  Set up some deviant CIX, say
IX195-8, let everyone with a shortish 195/8 prefix connect to it either
directly through their own provider, or indirectly through some tunnel, and
have IX195-8 announce reachability of 195/8.  That is, in short, altern
topology to meet addresses when the converse is too hard.  KRE detailed
that for the general case, but it would be even simpler in the case of
RIPE, since all the allocated network numbers are in the same geographical

Christian Huitema

More information about the NANOG mailing list