|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
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. Ed 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 > area. > > Christian Huitema > > > Ed Morin Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505 (voice) Professional Internet Services [email protected]
|