|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: fighting cidr dead ending (was: RE: CIDR Report)
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Dmitri Krioukov > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 5:46 PM > To: [email protected]; 'brett watson'; [email protected] > Subject: fighting cidr dead ending (was: RE: CIDR Report) > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > > Roeland Meyer (E-mail) > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2000 3:31 PM > > To: 'brett watson'; [email protected] > > Subject: RE: CIDR Report > > > > Under the current system, what we are forced to do is either obtain a > > /24 for each location (even when there are <16 hosts there), or > > so, basically we have this very common > and well understood situation that there > are some customers who do not require large > blocks but who want to see their small pi blocks > advertised and routable more or less everywhere > (if those blocks are pa, how many over there are > using the second option from rfc2260? if not that > many, what's wrong with that?). among these customers, > there is some portion, who may be educated that they do > not really need what they ask for. the other portion > either cannot be educated or does really need that. as > for "interim" :) solution, i cannot see much problem > (except significant coordination effort) in having > (regional) irs allocating blocks, from which longer > (than /24) prefixes would be acceptable even by verio. > this way, verio would be happy filtering all longer > prefixes except from these well-known blocks and the > address space wouldn't be wasted on the aforementioned > customers. > > some tables may be even created matching allowed prefix > lengths and the well-known block(s) for them. it looks like i'm reinventing the classfull routing, though :) > -- > dima. -- dima.
|