Hi Paul, you comment leaves me confused. 25,000 24s up 20% in the last six months means 5,000 NEW prefix 24s in the global routing tables. Where did they come from? I ask because I had thought that it was just about impossible to get a 24 routed at the nets defaultless core. And that this impossibility has been around for at least the last 6 months. I thought that if "cooknet" as a new MCI customer has a 24 handed to it by mci all nice and cidrized that "cooknet's" 24 would never appear in your list being aggregated by mci along with other 24s to make a smaller prefix that would be announced eventually in the global tables? Have I misunderstood something or is theory diverging from practice. ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://pobox.com/cook/ Internet: cook@cookreport.com For case study of MercerNet & TIIAP induced harm to local community http://pobox.com/cook/mercernet.html ************************************************************************ On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Paul A Vixie wrote:

...

Without pointing fingers, there are some 9K prefixes that could be removed by proper aggregation/reconfiguration.

There are also 25,000 /24's, up 20% from six months ago. I don't have any figures on how many are in the "swamp", but I think this is the most fruitful place to try to cap growth or hack it back:

Total routes: 39670

8 22 0.1% 9 1 0.0% 10 4 0.0% 11 6 0.0% 12 14 0.0% 13 30 0.1% 14 102 0.3% 15 173 0.4% 16 5687 14.3% 17 246 0.6% 18 493 1.2% 19 921 2.3% 20 954 2.4% 21 1200 3.0% 22 1824 4.6% 23 2425 6.1% 24 25539 64.4% ...

Avi pointed out: The swamp is basically the old "Classful" address space. What Sean did was to say "You can use your old 'Class C's but I have to stop the table-size growth in *new allocations*". ========= Then apparently I have misunderstood what the swamp was/is. I thought it was just an unaggregated area and didn't understand why. Is there text somewhere that explains very clearly the swamp and the policies attached there to? Is the swamp then bounded by class c addresses warranted as routable when they were handed out? Are you saying then that the defaultless core routability of class c's from the swamp is, as of now, guaranteed? Of the class cs from the swamp how many are now being routed at the defaultless core? HOW MANY ADDITIONAL CLASS Cs FROM THE SWAMP ARE THERE FOR WHICH THE OWNERS COULD DEMAND ROUTING? In other words are these 5,000 new class c's just the beginning? Or are they, hopefully the end? ========= Avi writes: Umm, Gordon, read what Paul said. He was saying that he suspected that the new /24s are in the swamp. And even Sprint listens to any /24s from there. The swamp is basically the old "Classful" address space. What Sean did was to say "You can use your old 'Class C's but I have to stop the table-size growth in *new allocations*". Avi ************************************************************************ The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://pobox.com/cook/ Internet: cook@cookreport.com For case study of MercerNet & TIIAP induced harm to local community http://pobox.com/cook/mercernet.html ************************************************************************

On Thu, 5 Sep 1996, Gordon Cook wrote: ==>Is the swamp then bounded by class c addresses warranted as routable when ==>they were handed out? Are you saying then that the defaultless core ==>routability of class c's from the swamp is, as of now, guaranteed? They were never warranted or guaranteed as routable. However, the NIC didn't place any warnings that space smaller than a certain amount may not be routable, and at the time, no one had placed filters on route distribution like SprintLink's. The NIC opted to revise its wording on the application around the same time SprintLink placed its filter on new allocations. For right now, the routability of class C's is not guaranteed out of the swamp; however, I know of no route filters out there which will restrict them. /cah

Below... ......... Gordon Cook is rumored to have said: ] ] Avi pointed out: ] ] The swamp is basically the old "Classful" address space. ] What Sean did was to say "You can use your old 'Class C's ] but I have to stop the table-size growth in *new allocations*". ] ] ========= ] Then apparently I have misunderstood what the swamp was/is. I thought it ] was just an unaggregated area and didn't understand why. Is there text ] somewhere that explains very clearly the swamp and the policies attached ] there to? I see a question that says why was it not aggregated? It wasn't aggregate because at the time of dispersion, there was no need to allocate, routing table growth was not a significant factor in internet address allocation. ] Is the swamp then bounded by class c addresses warranted as routable when ] they were handed out? Are you saying then that the defaultless core ] routability of class c's from the swamp is, as of now, guaranteed? Perhaps I'm a bit of a wild card, but I don't see any IP address as routable based on official policy or origin of assignment. IP Address space is routable because each [I|N]SP that might have occasion to route the space, agrees to. They agree to because it makes economic sense, or, in some cases *cough sprint* it does not make economic sense to route 207.99.99.0/24 (apologies to NAC.NET, I just made the net up, and I know they have a /18, so the example is invalid...) . I firmly believe that explainable economic decisions are in the best interest of the net, and if they're not, the company making poor economic decisions will leave through natural [economic] selection. ] Of the class cs from the swamp how many are now being routed at the ] defaultless core? HOW MANY ADDITIONAL CLASS Cs FROM THE SWAMP ARE THERE ] FOR WHICH THE OWNERS COULD DEMAND ROUTING? Lots. ] In other words are these 5,000 new class c's just the beginning? Or are ] they, hopefully the end? Neither, they're a holdover from a more carefree time... At least, that's my 3 minute rant before my next meeting... :) -alan ] ========= ] ] Avi writes: ] ] Umm, Gordon, read what Paul said. ] ] He was saying that he suspected that the new /24s are in the swamp. ] And even Sprint listens to any /24s from there. ] ] The swamp is basically the old "Classful" address space. ] What Sean did was to say "You can use your old 'Class C's ] but I have to stop the table-size growth in *new allocations*". ] ] Avi ] ] ] ************************************************************************ ] The COOK Report on Internet For subsc. pricing & more than ] 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA ten megabytes of free material ] (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) visit http://pobox.com/cook/ ] Internet: cook@cookreport.com For case study of MercerNet & ] TIIAP induced harm to local community http://pobox.com/cook/mercernet.html ] ************************************************************************ ] ] ]

There are also 25,000 /24's, up 20% from six months ago. I don't have any figures on how many are in the "swamp", but I think this is the most fruitful place to try to cap growth or hack it back:

I agree. Ideally there can be some type of gentle persuasion to make this happen - ie, if you renumber from a /24, you will get better reliability. Sprint's dampening policy encourages this.

23 2425 6.1% 24 25539 64.4% ...