North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: CIDR Report

  • From: Danny McPherson
  • Date: Sat May 13 16:49:29 2000

> None of these are big enough to justify their own backbone operations or to
> buy a backbone from someone else, or there wouldn't be a problem. Paying scads 
> of extortion money is also problematic (cheaper to simply burn the IP addresses).
> I am NOT advocating tossing all of that out. I am simply bringing up a
> problem condition. Please, don't shoot the messenger, or otherwise get
> defensive (return fire is a bitch).

Nope, all of these are reasonable, the ones that aren't are, for example, 
where folks have a single connection, or multi-home only to a single provider.

> What I am bringing up here is that new, information-age companies, 
> as predicted in MegaTrends over 10 years ago, are now starting to
> appear. They are very diffused (sparse population, over very large 
> areas of the globe) and have connectivity needs which are both critical, 
> yet very different from click-n-morter customers that the Big8 was 
> built up to handle (either classful or classless). The current architecture
> is not handeling them very well.
> The problem is currently in it's infancy, it will get much worse.

I'm not disagreeing with any of this.  Actually, I see reliability and 
availability feeding into all these other issues as well.

It just that some of the folks advocating portability and deaggregation are 
using "route table size doesn't matter anymore" as an argument, when it 
absolutely does matter, especially if we plan to make the Internet more 
reliable, and less vulnerable.