<CIDRD is the wrong list for this: CIDRD is for *deployment*, not architectural debate. Please follow-up on Big-Internet.> From: Tim Bass Then, in parallel, CIDR was hailed as the 'way to help save B space [depletion] problems'. ... very surprised to learn that our vision of "completely portable" CIDR address space have been overshadowed by the success of CIDR in another problem area that only those with keen insight at the time could predict, routing table explosion. You keep saying this, but it is *NOT TRUE*. You didn't need "keen insight" to know it was coming, you only needed to be able to *read*, viz (from "Supernetting: an Address Assignment and Aggregation Strategy" RFC-1338, June 1992): As the Internet has evolved and grown over in recent years, it has become painfully evident that it is soon to face several serious scaling problems. These include: ... 2. Growth of routing tables in Internet routers beyond the ability of current software (and people) to effectively manage. ... It has become clear that the first two of these problems are likely to become critical within the next one to three years. This memo attempts to deal with these problems by proposing a mechanism ... So, the routing table problem was well known to be coming at the time that CIDR was under discussion, and the effects of CIDR on address allocation were pointed out in *great* detail in a discussion on the *main* IETF list (look in the archives for the thread "Re: Vote NO on R-L-G IP Address Allocation proposal", and in particular my message of "Sat Oct 31 19:26:04 1992", the infamous "fnortz" message, which pointed out in some detail why renumbering was inevitable). So, if anyone who are around then missed it, they have only themselves to blame. I am damned tired of people rewriting history. Please cease and desist before I become extremely upset. after all, CIRD was only to be an *interim solution* for a few years for B space depletion. IPv6 would take care of that. ... aggregation was now the accepted practice for solving most I problems and was not an *interium* or temporary fix, but was to be a core Internet solution. There is a certain amount of truth to this. CIDR did assume that some "better" fix was coming as part of IPng (and let's not forget, the CIDR debate predated the IPv6 debate - SIP only started to be discussed late that summer). However, as is now I hope obvious to everyone, it's impossible to have a single namespace which is both i) used directly for routing, and ii) identifies hosts directly. To get rid of "renumbering", the Internet needed to split "addresses" as host-identifiers from "addresses" as routing-names, and map one into another. No matter how hard I and some others argued for doing this, though, people didn't want to take that "radical" step of two namespaces. Everyone's moaning now about the painful consequences? Tough. (I take great delight in the fact that one of the principal opponents of splitting off the host-identification function is also one of the people most upset at renumbering. I expect by now, with hindsight to help his understanding along, the irony will have dawned on him.) Technically, the aggregation advocates were correct. Socially and politically, aggregation on a global cooperative scale has problems. Which is why we need *two* namespaces: one for the routing to do what mathematics forces it to, and one for the humans to be able to dork with. there are future social and political implementations of global aggregation that are negative. There are some very painful routing consequences, even with two separate name-spaces (e.g. things like inbound traffic bias), but these are technical problems which will only admit of technical fixes. We have to investigate various possible technical solutions, and weigh the costs of them against the benefit of doing it the way we'd like, but that debate has to be a purely technical one, *not* a policy debate. Now, let's see, where are my winterized, flame proof, long johns? After this email, I'm sure to need numerous layers :-) ;-) Hah! When I get *really* grumpy, you better have something better than miserable protective clothing! Try a bunker reinforced to +125 PSI blast overpressure! :-) Noel
In regards to:
(Tim Bass) Technically, the aggregation advocates were correct. Socially and politically, aggregation on a global cooperative scale has problems. (Noel) Which is why we need *two* namespaces: one for the routing to do what mathematics forces it to, and one for the humans to be able to dork with.
This idea has been around *long* enough. When do we separate the name spaces? How about along with the IPng transition? -Mike
Salutations. ] >(Tim Bass) ] > Technically, the aggregation advocates were correct. Socially and ] > politically, aggregation on a global cooperative scale has problems. ] >(Noel) ] >Which is why we need *two* namespaces: one for the routing to do what ] >mathematics forces it to, and one for the humans to be able to dork with. ] (Mike) ] This idea has been around *long* enough. When do we separate the name ] spaces? How about along with the IPng transition? I ask the following question naievely because I don't know how to ask it maturely. What are the correlations and contrasts between our current backbone routing problems (wrt space and # of routes) and the FCC decision several years ago to make 1-800 numbers portable. Is there any correlation? I realize (think) that the FCC ruling was localized to the US, perhaps not..... I ask because I see the a potential scenario when we are forced to play hardball wrt non portability of new CIDR routes. Imagine this... Big corporation leaves us having been allocated /21 of address space. We tell them to get new IP numbers from their provider and backbone smart people make it known they won't propogate routes (you wouldn't, right Sean?). They say get stuffed, and get a congress person to propose a bill that all IP numbers are portable. This bill passes. It could happen. Any thoughts? -alan
Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net> writes:
What are the correlations and contrasts between our current backbone routing problems (wrt space and # of routes) and the FCC decision several years ago to make 1-800 numbers portable.
Correlations are manifold. The most striking contrasts: - Implementation on the 1-800 numbers was straightforward - number space quite small - routing fairly centralised - on the level of the 1-800 address space there is quite static routing, I understand that database updates at that time were done by shipping magtapes - The problem was local to one country and jurisdiction due to the addressing hierarchy
I ask because I see the a potential scenario when we are forced to play hardball wrt non portability of new CIDR routes. Imagine this... Big corporation leaves us having been allocated /21 of address space. We tell them to get new IP numbers from their provider and backbone smart people make it known they won't propogate routes (you wouldn't, right Sean?). They say get stuffed, and get a congress person to propose a bill that all IP numbers are portable. This bill passes.
They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they? Daniel
On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they?
In the state where this happened it was passed by their congress but was vetoed in their senate so it never became law. Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
I don't know what this has to do with big-I or cidr but let's just clear the urban legend. It was a small community in Alabama that voted (for their town) to allow PI to equal 3 for the purpose of calculating square footage for property tax. That's it. No grand scheme to defraud Southern schoolkids, no legislation of ip_v !=4, just something to make taxes simple. Ehud
On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they?
In the state where this happened it was passed by their congress but was vetoed in their senate so it never became law.
Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-542-4130 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael@memra.com
Actually, the (original) explanation is correct. The state was Indiana. Read about it in Petr Beckmann's "History of Pi" if you're interested about it. I believe it has the full story.
It was a small community in Alabama that voted (for their town) to allow PI to equal 3 for the purpose of calculating square footage for property tax.
That's it. No grand scheme to defraud Southern schoolkids, no legislation of ip_v !=4, just something to make taxes simple.
They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they?
In the state where this happened it was passed by their congress but was vetoed in their senate so it never became law.
From: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com> On Thu, 16 Nov 1995, Daniel Karrenberg wrote:
They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they?
In the state where this happened it was passed by their congress but was vetoed in their senate so it never became law. Florida. I'm not sure that it was vetoed, though, I'll have to check back. (The premis of the argument put forth was a quote in the bible about a certain oasis being 30 cubits around and 10 cubits across, so PId=c solve for PI.) Dave K. (rampant trivia maven)
Noel, With all due respects, no one is rewriting history. In early 1993 I had little time to read IETF threads on the aggregation issue, kind sir. We were working 12-16 hours a day moving big corporations and corporate networks into a position to be a part of the big I. It was the AGS+ --- 7000s were just a dream....... and from our vantage point the future address space problems were the least of my worries. Keeping corporate network managers from getting fired because they could not move packets or had to renumber three class Bs to connect were my issues. Keeping high power marketing experts from going way over your head and doing battle over ordering a client to renumber was a daily event. The historical IETF WGs have their history, as you remind us. But it is only fair to point out that there are other practical perspectives and day-to-day operations that have historical significance. The IETF is not the *only* organization allowed to have an opinion (and I use the word "organization" very loosely). I do not wish to argue with my Noel. I would rather pick a fight with the devil..... at least I would stand a fighting chance :-) The topic, I thought was something like "router wars" and address space issues. I simple point out that it is causal that there will be problems with global aggregation; and the social, political, and economic ramifications may possibly overshadow any technical drafts the IETF stores in it's archives. Please do not send any life 200 mm shells toward this bunker. I am still having trouble finding my asbestos long johns and teflon helmet ;-) I'm not one to question your dominance in the field, only to learn and work toward similar goals. Best Regards, Tim +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Tim Bass | #include<campfire.h> | | Principal Network Systems Engineer | for(beer=100;beer>1;beer++){ | | The Silk Road Group, Ltd. | take_one_down(); | | | pass_it_around(); | | http://www.silkroad.com/ | } | | | back_to_work(); /*never reached */ | +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
participants (9)
-
A Page in the Life of ... -
Alan Hannan -
Daniel Karrenberg -
dogcow＠piglet.merit.net -
Ehud Gavron -
jnc＠ginger.lcs.mit.edu -
Michael Dillon -
Mike Little -
Tim Bass