Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

This is great, I feel like one of the in crowd - getting slammed by
Tim Bass :slight_smile:

Consider it your lucky day :slight_smile:

Did you find a four leaf clover after the snow melted, or find a lucky
horse-shoe in the fields today?

Seriously,

There are better ways to promote CIDR hierarchical routing without
the " they don't care about the Internet" rhetoric, and to ask you not
to resort to it is not a "slam", sorry to make you feel that way.

(and BTW, it is not the first time the request has been made...)

There are at least five hierarchical routing architectures that are
not CIDR based that would greatly reduce the administrative problems
the InterNIC and RIPE (and the rest of the world) if they were not
tabled in favor of the current path we walk.

Okay, granted, we walk the CIDR path today. Fine, CIDR has done a good
job putting a band-aid on a flying elephant, we all agree. What is
hard to understand is why men and women with intelligent brains believe
that there is only ' one way, one religion' to do hierarchical routing.

Why try to convince the world that there is?

Interesting enough, after spending days and days in the journal archives
most major journals and finding only one author's name that
is a part of these discussions in any peer reviewed publication,
is very enlightening.

I am quite sure that the most vocal advocates of CIDR have read very little
historical documents outside of the IETF RFCs. I highly recommend some
time spent in review of the principals of hierarchical routing; graph
theory; queuing systems; dynamic programming and others as well as the
marginalia of journal articles on the subject.

For those who do, I will be very surprised to learn that the "emotional
plea for CIDR or die" remains at their fingertips; and phrases like
" he or she does not care about the Internet....".

Question:

What did those in the Dark Middle Ages do when branded
a heretic by the religious zealots ?

Answer:

Most of them were put to the flame and ridiculed.

Very truly yours,

Tim

2

Tim,

   What is
   hard to understand is why men and women with intelligent brains believe
   that there is only ' one way, one religion' to do hierarchical routing.

What's REALLY hard to believe is that we STILL haven't gotten through to
you. No one is telling you that there is one way and one religion. That's
what you, in your conspiracy theory, would like to believe, but it's simply
NOT true.

We are quite certain that there ARE other ways of doing routing. But they
are not yet implementable. There is a LOT of work to be done to bring a
new routing architecture to full deployment. It has not happened yet.

You would be much better served by spending the time to refine and bring
one of these to implementability than you will by continuing to stand up
and say that we refuse to listen to you.

I apologize for repeating myself, but we would love to have something
better. Until such an architecture gets sufficiently refined that it can
migrate from theoretical journals (or, in the case of Nimrod, theoretical
Noelgrams :wink: to something that we can actually code up, you should not
expect to see any serious interest in implementation.

Unlike certain other working groups, if we do not have a working product on
time, there are certain extremely serious ramifications. We cannot simply
say "stop the Internet while we figure this out". For one, those of us in
commercialdom would immediately be in an Unemployment line. :wink: Or the
morgue after the user revolt.

I strongly encourage you to continue your study of the problem. I further
encourage you to participate in the IRTF and with the other routing
theorists (you know the group) who are actively interested in these issues.
And I further encourage you to take some time to understand the harsh
engineering realities that we face. And I finally encourage you to find a
better platform for your discussions than these highly inappropriate
mailing lists.

Back to my code,
Tony