nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Big Squeeze
From: Kim Hubbard <kimh () internic net>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 01:56:42 -0500 (EST)
Except the current allocation practices seem at odds with the goal of minimizing route table growth. Why is it better to allocate several non-agregatable blocks that are 'just' the right size rather than one aggregatable block the next size larger?
Actually, the current allocation practices do exactly that since the InterNIC, in almost all cases, allocates blocks of addresses to ISPs from larger reserved blocks. Kim Hubbard
So which do providers really want to minimize, the number of route entries or the size of individual route entries? -- Sean Donelan, Data Research Associates, Inc, St. Louis, MO Affiliation given for identification not representation
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: The Big Squeeze, (continued)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Avi Freedman (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Michael Dillon (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Michael Shields (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Scott Bradner (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Philip J. Nesser II (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Craig Nordin (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Philip J. Nesser II (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Michael Dillon (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Michael Dillon (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Sean Donelan (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Kim Hubbard (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Nathan Stratton (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul A Vixie (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul Ferguson (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Randy Bush (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul Ferguson (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul Ferguson (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Randy Bush (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul Ferguson (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Randy Bush (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul Ferguson (Mar 02)