|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Work Work Work
Note the reply-to header, and please respect/emulate it. tb> I haven't had time to read the messages, flames, sarcasm, etc. tb> on the strong stand and reaction to another rebirth of the ZOA tb> movement to control all old Class C ( now called /24 space ). This explains why you are uninformed. tb> However, based on names like Vixie, and our difference in opinion tb> on this matter, and Paul's continued support of 'world IP address tb> space domination', I think I can guess what he is saying (or flaming) tb> without reading alll messages. I think that you are wrong, severally. I don't like the idea of proxy aggregation but I have said nothing about it on the current thread. "Names like Vixie". Hmmm, I like that. I think I see a new .signature quote somewhere in the above paragraph. What Paul has offered his continued support for is ``world domain name domination,'' not ``world IP address space domination.'' Tim, this is not even half baked. I don't think you've even got an oven over there. tb> THE NEUTRAL ZONE Better known as THE TWILIGHT ZONE, actually, both because it's murky and full of superstitious but interesting nonsense, and because we're seeing the twilight of its once bright day. Tim, you called it significant, and I agree except that I also think that the rotary dial telephone was quite significant in its day -- and completely inappropriate on THIS day. tb> PS: I'm away from my linux children on travel for a few days and tb> will have to respond to the flamage on this controversial tb> subject in a delayed fashion. However, it is my hope that tb> the ZOAs find something more constructive to do besides tb> assault the neutral zone. Despite their rhetoric, they tb> will fail and their efforts will destablize the net. There's no way to force someone to peer, or to carry your routes. If they make the business decision that they can only carry N routes in their core, and that they want the maximum possible number of endpoint addresses to be represented by those N routes, then they will pick the N largest prefixes. If you aren't in one of those, you may find yourself lacking connectivity. You can whine and bitch and yes, even moan, but other people have business decisions to make and the TWD is getting more and more expensive to keep. Some of us are trying to find ways to shrink since it has a lot of stuff that doesn't need to be represented by /24's -- either nets which could be trivially renumbered into larger (sigh, yes, provider assigned) prefixes, or stuff that could be aggregated with neighbors (as I did with my /23). If we can make it shrink, then the value of N will not exceed the core router capacities as it will otherwise shortly do. On the other hand Cisco can probably cons up a 256MB router and people with worldwide networks can afford to buy them, and if the business decision merits it, the money will be spent and the TWD (or TNZ, or TTZ) will stop seeming like a problem. I don't expect that last to happen, since a lot of allocated but previously unadvertised networks are getting dusted off and put into use, and a lot of the growth we're seeing isn't from new NIC allocations at all. This means the TWD is potentially much larger than it seems today, and some kind of route filters in 192-space are probably coming soon to a provider near you. Meanwhile maybe you and Karl D. should finish that router he was talking about a while back, that represented a full IPv4 of /32's as a bitmap or whatever it was. If you build it, folks will buy it, and you'll be a hero. A whacky hero, sort of like the Scarlet Pumpernickel, but a hero anyway. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|