Minutes from Danvers

Of interest to the Local IR group is the last paragraph, about
RFCs 1597 and 1627.

Cheers.

Mike

------- Forwarded Message

Return-Path: owner-eot at ebone.net
Received: by sunic.sunet.se (8.6.8/2.03)
	id LAA10188; Tue, 2 May 1995 11:11:25 GMT
Received: from nico.aarnet.edu.au by sunic.sunet.se (8.6.8/2.03)
	id NAA10178; Tue, 2 May 1995 13:11:18 +0200
Received: from greatdane.cisco.com ([171.69.1.141]) by nico.aarnet.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id TAA15741 for <cidrd at iepg.org>; Tue, 2 May 1995 19:16:07 +1000
Received: (tli at localhost) by greatdane.cisco.com (8.6.8+c/8.6.5) id CAA26024; Tue, 2 May 1995 02:15:08 -0700
Date: Tue, 2 May 1995 02:15:08 -0700
From: Tony Li <tli at cisco.com>
Message-Id: <199505020915.CAA26024 at greatdane.cisco.com>
To: cidrd at iepg.org
Subject: Minutes from Danvers


			       CIDRD Minutes

Address Space Growth Report

The usual report on the usage of the IPv4 address space was presented.  A
revised estimate of 2018 +/- 8 years was given.  The cause for the recent
decrease in the slope of the curve was discussed, but no firm conclusion
was reached.

Routing Table Size

As of Danvers, 25452 routes are present in the backbone routing tables.
CIDR routes have increased dramatically in the last year. (113 -> 2215,
Seattle to Danvers). ASs doing CIDR have also increased dramatically. (35
- -> 289) More than 1/2 (56%) of the ASs are announcing CIDRerized routes,
but there are also a high number (134 of 2215) are only annoucing only one
route. Tony Bates has a report he used to produce that would show who has
not CIDRiszed which should continue to be posted.  It appears that the
total number of routes is flattening out.

It was noted that flaps are an ongoing, serious problem and that the flap
rate of a prefix is proportional to the length of the prefix.

CIDR has had a significant impact on the number of theoretical hosts/route.
The effect also is different among the various blocks. There is even an
effect in 192.

Class-A Allocation

The IANA has not yet released any Class A networks to be allocated. The
working group would like to survey of the Class As to see which ones are
actually in use and are globally routed and which are unused. There is also
a need to provide a guideline document to IANA for the allocation of As.
Scott said that IESG has discussed this, but it looking for a document that
helps define the situation and the potential impact of using Class As.
There has been a suggestion that a class A be leased to someone to do
evaluations.  Geoff Huston has an extensive note on the topic in the IEPG
archives and Bill Manning will work on helping to document the IANA
guideline. Why do this at all? Class A is the last 25% percent of the
address space available. There is not a specific desire to allocate this
space, but there is a desire to be sure it is possible before it is
actually done.  Matt Mattis suggests that each provider get a subnet out of
a particular A and see if they can communicate with each other.  There are
also reverse lookup DNS issues.  As of this writing, an experiment has
already been undertaken to test routing of subnets of a Class A network.

Address Ownership

Yakov Rekhter gave a presentation on the effects of address ownership on
the scalability of Internet routing.  This talk concluded that address
ownership is impractical if we intend to continue to use hierarchical
routing within the Internet.  This talk is to become an RFC under the CIDRD
WG.  There is consensus that renumbering is something that should be
promoted.

A proposal has been made to create a document that will advocate that
providers filter out prefixes of a certain size. What does that mean for
multi-homed networks?  Yakov will create this document.
There is also an idea that settlements should be based on number of routes or
unaggregated routes.

Progressing RFC 1597 to Proposed Standard

There has been a suggestion that RFC1597 be moved to Proposed Standard.
Revisions are necessary to incorporate the comments from RFC 1627 and to
make the text classless.  The authors of the respective RFCs have agreed to
collaborate to produce the synthesized document.




------- End of Forwarded Message