|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: CIDR FAQ
In message <[email protected]>, Tony Li writes: > > To summarize: > - We know we still have a bad problem. > - We have end users who want "portable" addresses. > - Some of them are actually getting them. > - There are some ISP's who are not doing a reasonable job of > aggregation. > - We would like the ISP's to do a better job of aggregation. > - "Portable" addresses, by definition, are not aggregateable. > - If we can substantially reduce the number of "portable" > addresses which are assigned, then we can alleviate one > _clear_ cause of the problem. > - Other measures are in place to encourage ISP's to aggregate. > - Even more measures still remain to be developed. > - Most of the Evil Greedy Bastards who espouse CIDR have done > a good job of aggregating already. > > Tony Tony, This would be a good outline for an information RFC giving the status of CIDR deployment. CIDR deployment status is an important issue for the Internet. It is not well understood outside of the NANOG, IEPG, CIDRD community (which are all the same people anyway). With the move to discourage portable addresses, CIDR deployment directly affects a large body of users who don't understand the issues or the broader picture. These users might be less inclined toward accusations that users are taking the brunt of the changes and twoard conspiracy theories if the bigger CIDR deploymnent picture was more clearly presented to them. Curtis
|