[governance] NTIA statement on IP addressing - broadly supportive of RIRs

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

Yes, but there are very few levels of hierarchy, nothing like what was expected in 1993/95.  By and large the structure is flat and the tables are large and the routers can handle it, especially when you consider that routing is mostly based on AS numbers and peering rather than on prefix length.

Also living in a world where routers need to support both v6 routing information tables and v4 routing information tables, a few extra prefixes are not anybody's routing problem these days.



avri


On 5 Dec 2012, at 18:42, McTim wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 9:24 AM, Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Indeed, but this is still based on the CIDR as the prevailing reason for the allocation guidelines.
>> 
>> It is not the guideline, so much, that I am questioning, but the prevailing reason that establishes the criteria discussed in those guidelines.  If the demands of a hierarchical routing structure no longer hold in today's de-facto flattened routing architecture
> 
> Is this really the case?
> 
> My ISP is my LIR and routes my packets to and fro for me.  I think
> this is still the paradigm for most folks, no?
> 
> 
> -- 
> Cheers,
> 
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t