Mailing List Archive

> I think we all agree that CIDR is a good thing, I have no
> problems with it and feel that we should use it as best we can. The
> problems that I see, yes I know this has been said before, it is getting
> harder and harder for the little guy to get IPs from the Nic. Now that
> Sprint is saying that you now need a /16 to route over their network, I
> don't see the nic just handing out /16s like they did with the /19 or
> before that the /20s etc..

When did Sprint say that they're not hearing > /16s from external peers?
I think I missed that.

And I can assure you, the NIC has never to my knowledge allocated IP space
based on Sprint's filters. Proper allocation; notification via SWIP or
rwhois of the allocation; and the speed & size of previous blocks are the
criteria that I'm aware of.

> And Just because I have nothing else to do, except work, sleep,
> work, internet, eat, work, sleep, I did some looking around.
>
> [21]/export/home/c/cnielsen> whois 208.0.0.0
> Sprint (NETBLK-SPRINTLINK-BLKS)
>
> Netname: SPRINTLINK-BLKS
> Netblock: 208.0.0.0 - 208.3.255.0
>
> Here now shows that Sprint is getting a /15 from the nic and that
> they can now server more customers, move their ips around with little
> problem, etc. But what about some other ISP? Can they get a /15? Nope.
> But I bet you that if Sprint wanted to or even MCI for that matter, they
> could get a /14 or a /13 from the nic.

Or maybe even larger. Both MCI & Sprint have consistently filled /14s
like the above block. I'm not sure why the NIC doesn't allocate them
exponentially larger address space. Maybe they're not requesting it.

> How can we solve this problem? How can we make sure that everyone
> has equal access to IP addresses to make IP addresses usable around the
> Net, save on router memory etc? This is how I would do it.
>
> Move into the 206.10.0.0 - 206.15.0.0

We went through a /19; upgraded it to an overlapping /18; and then upgraded
it to an overlapping /17; all within 3 months. If you're really filling
address space with new & renumbering customers in a timely fashion, the NIC
has shown a willingness to reserve (strictly unoficially) contiguous address
space for you to expand into. I must have missed the announcement that
/16s would be required for entry into Sprint routing tables in new IP space.
Where in the IP range does that requirement start? The first time, Sean
mostly made people aware of the Sprint filtering policies to come before the
IP space that the filtering applied to was allocated.

> Any ISP/NSP that can provide a good network outline, showing not
> only how they plan to put into pratice but show their current setup,
> locations, etc. will be assigned a /16 in the range above. That would
> give about 1200 ISPs /16s.

I don't see this happening. I think it's a fine idea to set aside space
for up to 6 months to see if people will expand into it, but it is ture
that there are only so many /16s to go around and probably > 200 new ISPs
starting up every month, each of which will want that much space and will
take a loooong time to fill it.

> Now, to make sure they are being conservative with their
> networks, routing tables, CIDR, etc. Explain to the ISP that the only way
> they are going to get a /16 is if they renumber their whole network. This
> will return a lot of larger /20 and above address space to the nic and
> reduce the size of the routing table on the net.

Who's going to do the explaining?

> Now, why can't something like this be done? Trust me, If you gave
> me /16, I would have all my customers re-number, re-number all my hosts,
> etc in about 6 months, which is about the timeline I would bive.

Talk with the NIC. If you've gone through a /19 already in 3-6 months
from initial allocation to you, it's possible that you could get your
next allocation from the NIC if you agree to renumber within N months
and are multi-homed.

> But than again, we can go along as we do, the larger keep getting
> larger and the rest of us have to fight for IPs.
>
> ok, now off the soap box.
>
> Christian Nielsen
> Vyzynz International Inc. cnielsen@vii.com,CN46,KB7HAP
> Phone 801-568-0999 Fax 801-568-0953
> Private Email - Christian@Nielsen.Net BOFH - cnielsen@one.dot PS :)

Avi

> Here now shows that Sprint is getting a /15 from the nic and that
> they can now server more customers, move their ips around with little
> problem, etc. But what about some other ISP? Can they get a /15? Nope.

Right.

> But I bet you that if Sprint wanted to or even MCI for that matter, they
> could get a /14 or a /13 from the nic.

Wrong.

Sprint and MCI have a track record with InterNIC and they have shown that
they can efficiently use the next-smaller allocation size.

> How can we solve this problem? How can we make sure that everyone
> has equal access to IP addresses to make IP addresses usable around the
> Net, save on router memory etc?

Anyone who shows that they will be an efficient suballocator will get larger
blocks as they fill up their initial smaller ones. If IANA did as you suggest
and allocated huge blocks to everybody who can fib together a business plan,
there would not BE any unallocated address space by this time, yet the number
of reachable hosts would be lower than it is now.

A great deal of work went into the InterNIC's allocation policies. Before you
offer to rewrite them, you should do some homework and find out how they got
to be the way they are now.

On Thursday, April 04, 1996 3:07 PM, Christian Nielsen[SMTP:cnielsen@vii.com] wrote:
@
@ I think we all agree that CIDR is a good thing, I have no
@problems with it and feel that we should use it as best we can. The
@problems that I see, yes I know this has been said before, it is getting
@harder and harder for the little guy to get IPs from the Nic. Now that
@Sprint is saying that you now need a /16 to route over their network, I
@don't see the nic just handing out /16s like they did with the /19 or
@before that the /20s etc..
@

Yes CIDR is a good thing...unfortunately, it does not guarantee that the
net will grow and aggregate in a rational way. When coupled with the
"slow start" ISP policy, CIDR helps to rapidly fragment the IP address
space and in some cases causes poor IP address utilization all in the
name of "protecting the future of the Internet" or maybe "protecting the
Internet from ISPs".

@ And Just because I have nothing else to do, except work, sleep,
@work, internet, eat, work, sleep, I did some looking around.
@
@[21]/export/home/c/cnielsen> whois 208.0.0.0
@Sprint (NETBLK-SPRINTLINK-BLKS)
@
@ Netname: SPRINTLINK-BLKS
@ Netblock: 208.0.0.0 - 208.3.255.0
@
@ Here now shows that Sprint is getting a /15 from the nic and that
@they can now server more customers, move their ips around with little
@problem, etc. But what about some other ISP? Can they get a /15? Nope.

You have to face the fact that "THE Internet" as you know it has been turned over
to big demand, big money and big business. This will result in big government
stepping in to get the beast under control. If the government(s) do not step in,
we are going to have Cyber Wars never before experienced on the planet.

The people paying the admission (mostly consumers) will not tolerate these "wars"
and will have to turn to their government(s) for intervention. Politicians will thrive
on protecting the net from itself. Stay tuned for toll charges, taxes, certifications,
licensing, tariffs, and auditing.

@But I bet you that if Sprint wanted to or even MCI for that matter, they
@could get a /14 or a /13 from the nic.
@

They have to walk a fine line to look like good netizens while making sure
that they get their plates filled with ample helpings of resources. This is
sort of what happens when people stand in line at an "all you can eat buffet",
no one puts their face directly into the food or eats directly out of the serving
trays that would be "rude". Instead, some people stand in line, fill their plate
to the brim, and rush back to stand in line again. The management requests
that you "eat what you take". The food flows to those that can eat the fastest,
get back in line, and show a big empty plate plus a healthy appetite.

There is very little attention paid to how much food falls on the floor or is
passed to other parties. As long as the line keeps moving the food will keep
flowing. The management is just enforcing the policies which are clearly posted
on the walls.

@ How can we solve this problem? How can we make sure that everyone
@has equal access to IP addresses to make IP addresses usable around the
@Net, save on router memory etc? This is how I would do it.
@
<snip>
@
@Christian Nielsen

Another possible solution is to "reinvent the net"...using the net...the Internet
can be used as a large bit transporter and a "new" Internet can be constructed
around the edges of the current net. Customers interested in gourmet foods
and a more relaxed atmosphere can be attracted to the side-walk cafes that
can be positioned around the busy buffet described above. The crumbs provided
by THE net can easily fuel the new net.

I believe that there are technical ways of doing this that do not require IPv6...
the key will be to provide specific market reasons for customers to move to
this new net...(i.e. better service, faster service, better food, etc.)

Keep in mind that, not everyone eats at buffets...

--
Jim Fleming
UNETY Systems, Inc.
Naperville, IL 60563

e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Christian Nielsen wrote:

> I think we all agree that CIDR is a good thing, I have no
> problems with it and feel that we should use it as best we can.

We all agree there.

> problems that I see, yes I know this has been said before, it is getting
> harder and harder for the little guy to get IPs from the Nic.

We have the same harder and harder time getting addresses too.

> Now that
> Sprint is saying that you now need a /16 to route over their network,

wrong. it is /18 in 207/8

> I don't see the nic just handing out /16s like they did with the /19 or
> before that the /20s etc..
That is true, but with a good network plan and swib your current addresses
you should be able to get a /18 on a new allocation if you can justify it.
else get from an already aggregated block
>
> And Just because I have nothing else to do, except work, sleep,
> work, internet, eat, work, sleep, I did some looking around.

me too, just none of that sleep stuff these daze ;-)

>
> [21]/export/home/c/cnielsen> whois 208.0.0.0
> Sprint (NETBLK-SPRINTLINK-BLKS)
>
> Netname: SPRINTLINK-BLKS
> Netblock: 208.0.0.0 - 208.3.255.0
>
> Here now shows that Sprint is getting a /15 from the nic and that
> they can now server more customers, move their ips around with little
> problem, etc. But what about some other ISP? Can they get a /15? Nope.
> But I bet you that if Sprint wanted to or even MCI for that matter, they
> could get a /14 or a /13 from the nic.

We have to justify all ip blocks just like anyone else. We maintain an
excess of 90% utilization before asking for more.

>
> How can we solve this problem? How can we make sure that everyone
> has equal access to IP addresses to make IP addresses usable around the
> Net, save on router memory etc? This is how I would do it.
>
> Move into the 206.10.0.0 - 206.15.0.0
>
> Any ISP/NSP that can provide a good network outline, showing not
> only how they plan to put into pratice but show their current setup,
> locations, etc. will be assigned a /16 in the range above. That would
> give about 1200 ISPs /16s.

Guess what. that is exactly how you get what you are asking for from the
registry. In fact even if you can only justify a /19 now but have a good
plan, a /18 or better is usually reserved for you and the /19 allocated.
If you make good on your plan your /19 becomes a /18 etc.

> ...deleted...

Marc

> From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net>
> To: "'Christian Nielsen'" <cnielsen@vii.com>, "nanog@merit.edu"
> Subject: RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 01:29:10 -0600
> [...]
> Yes CIDR is a good thing...unfortunately, it does not guarantee that the
> net will grow and aggregate in a rational way. When coupled with the
> "slow start" ISP policy, CIDR helps to rapidly fragment the IP address
> space and in some cases causes poor IP address utilization all in the
> name of "protecting the future of the Internet" or maybe "protecting the
> Internet from ISPs".
> [...]

It would appear that there may also be a strong argument that the
tremendous proliferation of [small] ISPs is a significant contributor
to the growth of the size of the Internet routing tables.

Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant
event in the efforts to control routing table size.

-tjs

> > From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net>
> > To: "'Christian Nielsen'" <cnielsen@vii.com>, "nanog@merit.edu"
> > Subject: RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
> > Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 01:29:10 -0600
> > [...]
> > Yes CIDR is a good thing...unfortunately, it does not guarantee that the
> > net will grow and aggregate in a rational way. When coupled with the
> > "slow start" ISP policy, CIDR helps to rapidly fragment the IP address
> > space and in some cases causes poor IP address utilization all in the
> > name of "protecting the future of the Internet" or maybe "protecting the
> > Internet from ISPs".
> > [...]
>
> It would appear that there may also be a strong argument that the
> tremendous proliferation of [small] ISPs is a significant contributor
> to the growth of the size of the Internet routing tables.
>
> Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant
> event in the efforts to control routing table size.
>
> -tjs

Not unless they happen to have contiguous address space.

Seriously, almost every small ISP that I know of gets addresses from its
upstream provider(s). Therefore, unless they're dual-homed, they don't
contribute to the growth of the size of the tables.

Yes, they may sign up people with IPs in the swamp and route for them,
but so may any other ISP/NSP.

I can't imagine that there are more than 300 local and regional ISPs
that receive address space from the NIC directly. I could be wrong,
of course...

Avi

> From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
> Subject: Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
> To: salo@msc.edu (Tim Salo)
> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 10:18:25 -0500 (EST)
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> [...]
> > It would appear that there may also be a strong argument that the
> > tremendous proliferation of [small] ISPs is a significant contributor
> > to the growth of the size of the Internet routing tables.
> >
> > Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant
> > event in the efforts to control routing table size.
> >
> > -tjs
>
> Not unless they happen to have contiguous address space.

Oops. I forgot to add "in the long term." Presumably, a smaller
number of larger ISPs would be able to justify larger address blocks.
But you are correct in observing how difficult it is to go back and
clean up earlier allocations.

> Seriously, almost every small ISP that I know of gets addresses from its
> upstream provider(s). Therefore, unless they're dual-homed, they don't
> contribute to the growth of the size of the tables.
>
> Yes, they may sign up people with IPs in the swamp and route for them,
> but so may any other ISP/NSP.
>
> I can't imagine that there are more than 300 local and regional ISPs
> that receive address space from the NIC directly. I could be wrong,
> of course...

We hear a lot about dual-homed ISPs and ISPs who want to change their
upstream providers. It would be very interesting to have some
quantitative information about the size of these classes.

(Or, are issues related to dual-homed ISPs and changes in upstream
providers more theoretical than real?)

-tjs

On Friday, April 05, 1996 2:25 AM, Tim Salo[SMTP:salo@msc.edu] wrote:
@> From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming@unety.net>
@> To: "'Christian Nielsen'" <cnielsen@vii.com>, "nanog@merit.edu"
@> Subject: RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
@> Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 01:29:10 -0600
@> [...]
@> Yes CIDR is a good thing...unfortunately, it does not guarantee that the
@> net will grow and aggregate in a rational way. When coupled with the
@> "slow start" ISP policy, CIDR helps to rapidly fragment the IP address
@> space and in some cases causes poor IP address utilization all in the
@> name of "protecting the future of the Internet" or maybe "protecting the
@> Internet from ISPs".
@> [...]
@
@It would appear that there may also be a strong argument that the
@tremendous proliferation of [small] ISPs is a significant contributor
@to the growth of the size of the Internet routing tables.
@

Yes...and assuming some will die for whatever reason...the policies result
in small fragments being created with no active way to recover the fragments...
by forcing (err coaxing) ISPs to work with "upstream providers" there is a
garbage collection mechanism put in place...the upstream provider can
watch over part(s) of the address space which is clearly too large for a few
people to handle...

@Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant
@event in the efforts to control routing table size.
@
@-tjs
@

This is very true...this is the way cities have grown...the way railroads evolved...
the way many industries have matured...as the big get bigger, small ISPs will
realize that they have to partner to survive...these partnerships may help to improve
aggregation, routing, etc...unfortunately, some ISPs will never partner with anyone
because they "think" they are going to be the next RBOC...(as we now see, even
the RBOCs are partnering to survive and AT&T is de-partnering...)

The combined efforts of IANA, the InterNIC and the large "upstream providers"
work to perform social (err network) engineering. This works as long as the current
philosophy of "creating" and "controlling" scarce resources exists. People focused
on getting rich have to "play ball" or die. This same sort of situation exists in the
diamond business.

All of these "network engineering" efforts take us right back to the centralized
telecommunications authoriity that the Internet was designed to dismantle. It is
humorous to see the bleeding heart liberal Internauts becoming the new conservative
protectors of the net as maturity sets in...this is similar to the hippies and gang
members that now are elected officials...people are people, even on the Internet

I predict that the Internet will fall into the trap of having the same problems of the
system it is displacing...there is a growing centralized "elite" that call the shots
in a decentralized way...the shots that are called now are not much different than the
shots called by the previous elite and not much different than the shots called by
the pre-divestiture elite (called the Bell System).

The only way to break this cycle is to apply the same philosophies that built
the Internet to dismantling (err bounding ) the Internet...in order to do that, a ruling
elite has to be installed, everyone has to sing praises of the great successes,
the current system has to be bounded by its own limitations, and a few people
have to "think outside of the box"...

--
Jim Fleming
UNETY Systems, Inc.
Naperville, IL 60563

e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net

On Friday, April 05, 1996 3:58 AM, Tim Salo[SMTP:salo@msc.edu] wrote:
@> From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
@> Subject: Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
<snip>
@
@We hear a lot about dual-homed ISPs and ISPs who want to change their
@upstream providers. It would be very interesting to have some
@quantitative information about the size of these classes.
@
@(Or, are issues related to dual-homed ISPs and changes in upstream
@providers more theoretical than real?)
@
@-tjs
@

There is another very serious business reality when it comes to "upstream
providers". The InterNIC and the other "network engineering" bodies may not
have taken this into account.

The story goes like this...

ISP X is bidding on an important account with Company Y...there might be 16
other companies bidding for the same account...ISP X has a strong relationship
with one or more large "upstream providers" that also happen to sell long distance
telephone service...

It might happen that Company Y "dislikes" the upstream provider because of
a variety of reasons...maybe Company Y is owned by another similar company...
maybe a competitor of the upstream provider employs several thousand people
in the area and the upstream provider is not welcome in the area...maybe the
upstream provider filed suit against a local university over an operating system
and the people have never forgotten this...

...the point is that the InterNIC can not have a full understanding of the local
and global politics that can determine which way these decisions are made...

By "coaxing" ISPs to their upstream providers and not providing them with
portable globally routable IP addresses, the InterNIC could be setting an ISP
up for failure...the InterNIC and IANA are not taking into account the business
realities of the world...

...furthermore, by providing "selected" ISPs with portable, and globally routable
IP addresses, the InterNIC and IANA are making it easier for some companies
to "win" bids like the one described above...ISP X may not have a chance because
they can not offer the same "independence" from a particular upstream provider
that might be desired by Company Y...because of historical reasons which are
not discussed...

--
Jim Fleming
UNETY Systems, Inc.
Naperville, IL 60563

e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net

On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Jim Fleming wrote:

> I believe that there are technical ways of doing this that do not require IPv6...

Where's your Internet Draft or RFC ?

Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com

On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Tim Salo wrote:

> It would appear that there may also be a strong argument that the
> tremendous proliferation of [small] ISPs is a significant contributor
> to the growth of the size of the Internet routing tables.
>
> Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant
> event in the efforts to control routing table size.

There are other analysts (myself among them) who anticipate the number of
North Amercan ISP's to grow by a third this year from around 2,000 to
around 3,000. Yes, there is some consolidation, but this is very little
in relation to the entry of new ISP's into the market. As long as the
Internet is growing exponentially, there will be room for new entrants
and we will not be seeing an absolute decline in the number of ISP's.

Think exponentially, plan accordingly ;-)

In other words, CIDR, PIER, and RFC1918....

Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com

At 09:58 AM 4/5/96 -0600, you wrote:

>We hear a lot about dual-homed ISPs and ISPs who want to change their
>upstream providers. It would be very interesting to have some
>quantitative information about the size of these classes.
>
>(Or, are issues related to dual-homed ISPs and changes in upstream
>providers more theoretical than real?)

I have worked for 3 ISP's in the past several years. Of the three 2 peer at
the MAE (actually the connection for one of them is still sitting in
MaBell's in box). This is a prohibitively small sample to be useful though.
At most the number of ISP's dualhoming must be <= the number of assigned
ASN#'s. As for leaving their NSP, I am not sure that many are doing that.
Its hard as hell to do without killling your customers.


Justin Newton * You have to change just to stay
Internet Architect * caught up.
Erol's Internet Services *

On Friday, April 05, 1996 5:06 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote:
@On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Jim Fleming wrote:
@
@> I believe that there are technical ways of doing this that do not require IPv6...
@
@Where's your Internet Draft or RFC ?
@
@Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022


As I said...some people have to "think outside of the box"....
...working code and systems will be more critical...

...besides...Internet Drafts and Internet RFCs apply
to the Internet...if a new network is created outside of the
Internet, then the documentation on that network would
not necessarily fit the old model of the Internet...

As an example, HTML will be used for all documents on the
new Internet as well as for the programming language
documentation...people will have to have a minimal web
browser to make the transition to reading engineering
documents that have pictures, drawings, etc. and not
ASCII stick figures.


--
Jim Fleming
UNETY Systems, Inc.
Naperville, IL 60563

e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net

On Friday, April 05, 1996 5:33 AM, Michael Dillon[SMTP:michael@memra.com] wrote:
@On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Tim Salo wrote:
@
@> It would appear that there may also be a strong argument that the
@> tremendous proliferation of [small] ISPs is a significant contributor
@> to the growth of the size of the Internet routing tables.
@>
@> Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant
@> event in the efforts to control routing table size.
@
@There are other analysts (myself among them) who anticipate the number of
@North Amercan ISP's to grow by a third this year from around 2,000 to
@around 3,000. Yes, there is some consolidation, but this is very little
@in relation to the entry of new ISP's into the market. As long as the
@Internet is growing exponentially, there will be room for new entrants
@and we will not be seeing an absolute decline in the number of ISP's.
@

Has anyone analyzed what these ISPs will be doing?
Will most be dial-up providers?
Will ISPs gravitate to leased line sales as dial-up becomes a commodity?
Will some specialize only in co-located server farms?
How about the growing need for "gateway" services?
Will many of these new ISPs only serve other ISPs?
Have you included organizations that may not currently appear to be ISPs
but in reality will be ISPs? (Churches, schools, private networks, etc.)
Have we seen the first round of "cash out Kids" or "selling up and out"?
(It took several years for that to occur in PCs and Software)

@Think exponentially, plan accordingly ;-)
@

Yes, think exponentially, plan accordingly, and act globally...;-)

@In other words, CIDR, PIER, and RFC1918....
@
@Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022

No matter what happens Michael, keep in mind that the entire Internet
as you know it can fit in (Galaxy Zero, StarGate Zero) or (G:0,S:0)....:-)

--
Jim Fleming
UNETY Systems, Inc.
Naperville, IL 60563

e-mail: JimFleming@unety.net

On Thu, 4 Apr 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:

> When did Sprint say that they're not hearing > /16s from external peers?
> I think I missed that.

At interop, I picked up a mag where it was listed, now I got to
go find it again.

> And I can assure you, the NIC has never to my knowledge allocated IP space
> based on Sprint's filters. Proper allocation; notification via SWIP or
> rwhois of the allocation; and the speed & size of previous blocks are the
> criteria that I'm aware of.

Yes, you are correct. I agree with you on this one.

> I don't see this happening. I think it's a fine idea to set aside space
> for up to 6 months to see if people will expand into it, but it is ture
> that there are only so many /16s to go around and probably > 200 new ISPs
> starting up every month, each of which will want that much space and will
> take a loooong time to fill it.

I see ISPs going down all the time. Plus, with all the new ones
coming on line, they will not make it like the older times. Unless they
can compete on service. Even though we are $8.50 more in one city, we get
the customers from the other ISP everytime.

> > Now, to make sure they are being conservative with their
> > networks, routing tables, CIDR, etc. Explain to the ISP that the only way
> > they are going to get a /16 is if they renumber their whole network. This
> > will return a lot of larger /20 and above address space to the nic and
> > reduce the size of the routing table on the net.
>
> Who's going to do the explaining?

Well, I guess it could be in a RFC

Also, if you are able to get more IPs from the nic, you are in
less of a chance to be a non routable route. Plus, there needs to be a
way to get the ips cleaned up on the net.

Christian Nielsen
Vyzynz International Inc. cnielsen@vii.com,CN46,KB7HAP
Phone 801-568-0999 Fax 801-568-0953
Private Email - Christian@Nielsen.Net BOFH - cnielsen@one.dot PS :)

At 08:25 AM 4/5/96 -0600, Tim Salo wrote:

>Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant
>event in the efforts to control routing table size.
>
>-tjs
>
Do we need address leasing to hasten that process or should we let the
market decide? In any event, anyone buying up a bunch of ISPs will have a
difficult time cleaning up the aggregation of addresses they inherit.

--Kent

BTW, I thought it was the updates, peerings and flaps that was the true
problem, not the absolute number of routing table entries.

> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 1996 17:12:24 -0800
> To: salo@msc.edu (Tim Salo), nanog@merit.edu
> From: "Kent W. England" <kwe@6SigmaNets.com>
> Subject: RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
>
> At 08:25 AM 4/5/96 -0600, Tim Salo wrote:
> >Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant
> >event in the efforts to control routing table size.
> >
> Do we need address leasing to hasten that process or should we let the
> market decide? In any event, anyone buying up a bunch of ISPs will have a
> difficult time cleaning up the aggregation of addresses they inherit.

Obviously, cleaning up the current swamp is difficult.

On the other hand, should consolidation occur, presumably a smaller number
of larger ISPs would use a smaller number of larger address blocks, (plus
or minus issues of the magnitude of dual-homing and changing upstream
providers).

-tjs

On Fri, 5 Apr 1996, Justin W. Newton wrote:

> I have worked for 3 ISP's in the past several years. Of the three 2 peer at
> the MAE (actually the connection for one of them is still sitting in
> MaBell's in box). This is a prohibitively small sample to be useful though.
> At most the number of ISP's dualhoming must be <= the number of assigned
> ASN#'s. As for leaving their NSP, I am not sure that many are doing that.
> Its hard as hell to do without killling your customers.

Well in the Seattle area there are at least 3 providers who have switched
NSPs over the years. Of course, as far as I know, all of them had portable
address space at the time.

Christopher E Stefan http://www.ironhorse.com/~flatline
System Administrator Home: (206) 706-0945
Ironhorse Software, Inc. Work: (206) 783-6636
flatline@ironhorse.com finger for PGP key

In message <2.2.32.19960406011224.007175e4@mail.cts.com>, "Kent W. England" wri
tes:
> At 08:25 AM 4/5/96 -0600, Tim Salo wrote:
>
> >Perhaps, the [anticipated] consolidation of ISPs will be a significant
> >event in the efforts to control routing table size.
> >
> >-tjs
> >
> Do we need address leasing to hasten that process or should we let the
> market decide? In any event, anyone buying up a bunch of ISPs will have a
> difficult time cleaning up the aggregation of addresses they inherit.
>
> --Kent
>
> BTW, I thought it was the updates, peerings and flaps that was the true
> problem, not the absolute number of routing table entries.


Not a problem at all in a well designed and implemented router. With
say 30,000 routes and 100,000 updates in the queue, just empty the
inbound queue and decide what the end state is (including what get
dampenned and ignored now) and pass this end state on. Install routes
at a lower priority. Pass the end state on at a low priority. Next
guy get far fewer update. Dampenning actually puts a ceiling on it.

In a well designed router you can handle an arbirarily high amount of
routing change. If it is really well designed you won't drop any
packets at all going to the destinations that are not changing. The
only question is then whether you have enough memory to hold the
routing table if it continues to grow.

Today it is a problem. :-)

Curtis