Routing wars pending?

Hank expresses concern:


What are people doing in this area today? Are we going to start
seeing routing wars?


In the practical spirit of your question.....

I distinctly remember in 1993, preCIDR deployment, when the question was
asked around the table at a major corporation (.... not a net discussion,
an old-fashioned, face-to-face, meeting :slight_smile: We were brainstorming
future implementations of CIDR. I had been in the early hot seat as big
corps came onto the capital-I Internet, vis-a-vis marketing types having
a difficult choice (i.e. their potential big $$ client was using
unregistered address space) of renumbering an entire enterprise or
losing the account. I held fast, doing the 'right thing', and was
very unpopular to the marketing gurus as I held ground stating
*renumber* or take your business elsewhere. Luckily, management
supported our engineering decisions.

Then, in parallel, CIDR was hailed as the 'way to help save B space
deletion problems'. At the time, very few had a crystal ball and
believed the use of address space would explode to it's post WWW
rate. (some did, is the amazing thing!)

I have stated this innumerable times, and by saying so put myself in
a very unpopular position with certain Internet groups; at the time
we consided CIRD blocks to be *portable*. "After all", we stated,
"the address space does *not* belong to the provider of connectivity".
We also, as a major player at the time, had the unwritten policy "
portability of the customer address space, so they could easily
move to another provider, was a number one priority".

We understood that this opened the door for punching zillions of holes
in CIRD, but after all, CIRD was only to be an *interim solution* for
a few years for B space depletion. IPv6 would take care of that.

Like most people, I moved on to greener, more profitable career pastures
and was 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.

It was very suprising to me to learn that fate had changed the course of
history and 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.

Technically, the aggregation advocates were correct. Socially and politically,
aggregation on a global cooperative scale has problems. Historically,
when society has been forced into a solution that the general population
finds unacceptable, those decisions come back to haunt and trouble
us. This is causality, and causality always holds true, IMO.

This does not mean that aggregation is not a good thing, it certainly has
proven to be the saving technology of the Internet. On the other hand,
there are future social and political implementations of global aggregation
that are negative. We have discussed these issues and roasted the
'core ideas' repeatedly and my body is scared from raging fires.

Cause and effect.

No matter what we hope, pray, or design.... it is impossible to design,
hope or pray causality out of the event stream. Even the best laid
plans of both 'mice and men' ride the big causal ferris wheel.

Now, let's see, where are my winterized, flame proof, long johns? After
this email, I'm sure to need numerous layers :slight_smile: :wink: