[address-policy-wg] 2017-03 New Policy Proposal (Reducing Initial IPv4 Allocation, aiming to preserve a minimum of IPv4 space)

How is this related to my point (assuming this was a reply to my
message in the first place)?

| Artyom Gavrichenkov
| gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191
| mailto: ximaera at gmail.com
| fb: ximaera
| telegram: xima_era
| skype: xima_era
| tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58


On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Randy Bush <randy at psg.com> wrote:
> a bit of history for those with short term vision
>
>     1995, and large providers were running out of ram to hold the table.
>     sprint was the closest to the edge and falling over; but others were
>     not far behind and could smell the coffee.  these were the days
>     where we all intimately knew each others' networks.
>
>     nobody's management was gonna pay to upgrade hundreds of routers.
>     sean had to filter to keep from crashing.  others, such as asp and
>     i, were also filtering, as much to keep the table down as to protect
>     from idiots such as vinnie from killing us (7007 incident).
>
>     so the providers who were concerned and the rirs met at the danvers
>     ietf and agreed to only let /19s and shorter, and swamp space /24s,
>     through if the rirs would please not allocate longer prefixes for a
>     couple of years until routers could be upgraded.  rfc 2050 was the
>     result.
>
>     eventually, like six yesrs later, customers complained enough that
>     the filters had to be removed.  when a big customer or two wanted to
>     get to someone with a /24 in old B space, the filters fell.
>     business wins.
>
> when v4 runout forces folk to put /28s in frnt of nats, the folk with
> shiny shoes will have a little chat with senior leadership, and they'll
> cough up the bucks to hold the routes.  history repeats.
>
> like the ethernet mfrs tell us that we need to use 4g, 40g, ... instead
> of 10g, 100g, 1tb, ... life adds zeros.
>
> randy