Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

To some extent, isn't this how the Amateur Radio folks carve up the 44.*.*.*
network?  It might be an interesting experiment to use another class A net,
sort of like the recent 39.*.*.* (or was it 38?) subnet experiment for such
things as web farms, etc. that don't need large allocations, but could really
benefit from multi-homing.

Ed

On Mon, 29 Jan 1996, Christian Huitema wrote:

> At 11:22 AM 26/1/96, Sean Doran wrote:
> >|   > We just have some differences of philosophy -- you think
> >|   > that RIPE really can persuade people into having only
> >|   > 1024 announements (preferably far fewer) in 195/8, and
> >|   > I don't.  That's all.
> >|
> >| OK.  I call this a challenge but you won't let me try ;-).
> >
> >You and Randy Bush seem to be reading each other's minds.
> >
> >He has proposed this in a way that is very interesting,
> >and which I will think about.
> >
> >There is a bad failure mode to consider that even a badge
> >afterwards won't make any more attractive.
> >
> >Mostly it's "what on earth do we do if we cross the
> >threshold of 1024 prefixes in 195/8?" to which I see no easy
> >answer that doesn't involve inflict enormous pain on people
> >with old, established long prefixes in 195/8.
> 
> There is at least one very simple response.  Set up some deviant CIX, say
> IX195-8, let everyone with a shortish 195/8 prefix connect to it either
> directly through their own provider, or indirectly through some tunnel, and
> have IX195-8 announce reachability of 195/8.  That is, in short, altern
> topology to meet addresses when the converse is too hard.  KRE detailed
> that for the general case, but it would be even simpler in the case of
> RIPE, since all the allocated network numbers are in the same geographical
> area.
> 
> Christian Huitema
> 
> 
> 

Ed Morin
Northwest Nexus Inc. (206) 455-3505 (voice)
Professional Internet Services
edm at nwnexus.WA.COM