nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Big Squeeze
From: Sean Donelan <SEAN () SDG DRA COM>
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 0:12:05 -0600 (CST)
X-News: sdg.dra.com dra.mail.nanog:7843
The address allocation scheme is geared towards trying to promote utilization of IP space, thus the sorta "take just what you need" methodology. The filters that you talk of seem to me to be crude proxies for controlling routing space on a particular providers network, this seems to me to be a reasonable thing (i.e. they have to make their network work).
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? 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 Jim Jagielski (Mar 02)
- 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)