past vs future use
Jeff Williams
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
Sat Jun 28 09:53:09 EDT 1997
- Previous message: past vs future use
- Next message: past vs future use
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Karl Auerbach wrote: > > > [direct quote from the rfc] > > --- > > 3.1 Common Registry Requirements > > > > Because the number of available IP addresses on the Internet is > > limited, > > It's interesting that RFC2050 is premised on a limitation of addresses. > > The real issue that started all off this is not that we are running out of > addressing space (Frank Solenski's projections show we have about 20 years > before we hit the wall -- ask me sometime about how and where the original > calculation was made, it's an interesting story.) Rather, the real issue > is the routing table expansion. Exactly! Whew! Finaly someone sees the light! >;) > > While efficient utilization of addresses is important, it is not the only > concern. > > Perhaps an additional metric is whether an > allocation/delegation/assignment can be made that doesn't add additional > routing table entries. Good suggestion, and possible. I believe this suggestion has been mentioned not to long ago. Not sure where or who mad it however. It has been a thought on my mind for some time... > > For example an ISP that needs an additional /19 to add to their existing > /19 might need to trade in their old /19 in order to get a /18. That way > the number of routing table entries remains constant. Yes sir. Could work this way. I think however that some flexibility will need to be built in. > > That would change the system to one in which the registry (ARIN or an > intermediate level ISP) might have to withdraw previously delegated > address blocks and assign replacements in order to aggregate assignments. > > So perhaps an additional metric is whether one who desires an additioanl > block of addresses is willing to give up existing blocks in order to > obtain a larger, aggregated allocation. This is where the rub is going to be Karl. Maybe it could be finnessed a bit by allowing some change over time. > > --karl-- Regards, -- Jeffrey A. Williams DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng. Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office) E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
- Previous message: past vs future use
- Next message: past vs future use
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the NAIPR mailing list