Verizon Policy Statement on Net Neutrality

manning bill bmanning at isi.edu
Sun Mar 1 22:50:57 UTC 2015


Frank was the most vocal…

the biggest cidr deployment issue was hardware vendors with “baked-in” assumptions about addressing.  IPv6 is doing the same thing with its /64 nonsense.

/bill
PO Box 12317
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
310.322.8102

On 1March2015Sunday, at 13:37, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:

>> On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>> It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and
>>>> bandwidth caps.
>>> 
>>> let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a thing
>>> since the very early 1990s.  Otherwise why would cidr have been created?
>> 
>> CIDR had nothing to do with address scarcity.
> 
> Untrue.
> 
> CIDR was created in response to the proliferation of "class Cs" being allocated instead of "class Bs". The reason class Cs were being allocated instead of class Bs was due to projections (I believe by Frank Solensky and/or Noel Chiappa) that showed we would exhaust the Class B pool by 1990 or somesuch.  This led to the ALE (Address Lifetime Extensions) and CIDRD working groups that pushed for the allocation of blocks of class Cs instead of Class Bs.
> 
> CIDR also allowed for more appropriately sized blocks to be allocated instead of one-size-fits-most of class Bs. This increased address utilization which likely extended the life of the IPv4 free pool.
> 
> Regards,
> -drc
> 



More information about the NANOG mailing list