North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
- From: Ed Morin
- Date: Mon Jan 29 15:57:04 1996
To some extent, isn't this how the Amateur Radio folks carve up the 44.*.*.*
network? It might be an interesting experiment to use another class A net,
sort of like the recent 39.*.*.* (or was it 38?) subnet experiment for such
things as web farms, etc. that don't need large allocations, but could really
benefit from multi-homing.
On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Christian Huitema wrote:
> 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
Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505 (voice)
Professional Internet Services