nanog mailing list archives
Re: PI vs PA Address Space
From: "Michael F. Nittmann" <nittmann () wis com>
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 17:59:43 -0500 (CDT)
the proposal comes from a provider that cannot route around a cable cut for now more than 24h. Mike On Fri, 19 May 1995 peter () swan lanl gov wrote:
As an aside, is anyone else besides Sprint behind this /18 model?The hard core /18 model ("we won't accept prefixes greater than length 18") is untenable and throws out one of CIDR's features. It does not allow for a time period where a customer is migrating from provider A to provider B and will have end systems living within both provider based prefixes at any instant during the migration. The user community should not be forced into flash cuts, and the providers can make the needed overlap period of time work for bounded time frames. At a minimum, the model needs to be /18+E (E==entropy due to customer migrations). peter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael F. Nittmann nittmann () wis com Network Architect nittmann () b3 com B3 Corporation, Marshfield, WI (CIX Member) (715) 387 1700 xt. 158 US Cyber (SM), Washington DC (715) 573 2448 (715) 831 7922 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space, (continued)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space bmanning (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Karl Denninger, MCSNet (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Michael Dillon (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Peter Berger (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Jerry Anderson (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space bmanning (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Michael F. Nittmann (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Jerry Anderson (May 18)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space David R Conrad (May 19)
- PI vs PA Address Space Daniel Karrenberg (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space peter (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space Michael F. Nittmann (May 19)
- Re: PI vs PA Address Space bmanning (May 20)