Work Work Work

Note the reply-to header, and please respect/emulate it.

I haven't had time to read the messages, flames, sarcasm, etc.
on the strong stand and reaction to another rebirth of the ZOA
movement to control all old Class C ( now called /24 space ).

This explains why you are uninformed.

However, based on names like Vixie, and our difference in opinion
on this matter, and Paul's continued support of 'world IP address
space domination', I think I can guess what he is saying (or flaming)
without reading alll messages.

I think that you are wrong, severally. I don't like the idea of
proxy aggregation but I have said nothing about it on the current
thread. "Names like Vixie". Hmmm, I like that. I think I see a
new .signature quote somewhere in the above paragraph.

What Paul has offered his continued support for is ``world domain name
domination,'' not ``world IP address space domination.'' Tim, this is
not even half baked. I don't think you've even got an oven over there.


Better known as THE TWILIGHT ZONE, actually, both because it's murky and
full of superstitious but interesting nonsense, and because we're seeing
the twilight of its once bright day. Tim, you called it significant, and
I agree except that I also think that the rotary dial telephone was quite
significant in its day -- and completely inappropriate on THIS day.

PS: I'm away from my linux children on travel for a few days and
    will have to respond to the flamage on this controversial
    subject in a delayed fashion. However, it is my hope that
    the ZOAs find something more constructive to do besides
    assault the neutral zone. Despite their rhetoric, they
    will fail and their efforts will destablize the net.

There's no way to force someone to peer, or to carry your routes. If they
make the business decision that they can only carry N routes in their core,
and that they want the maximum possible number of endpoint addresses to be
represented by those N routes, then they will pick the N largest prefixes.

If you aren't in one of those, you may find yourself lacking connectivity.

You can whine and bitch and yes, even moan, but other people have business
decisions to make and the TWD is getting more and more expensive to keep.

Some of us are trying to find ways to shrink since it has a lot of stuff
that doesn't need to be represented by /24's -- either nets which could be
trivially renumbered into larger (sigh, yes, provider assigned) prefixes,
or stuff that could be aggregated with neighbors (as I did with my /23).

If we can make it shrink, then the value of N will not exceed the core
router capacities as it will otherwise shortly do. On the other hand Cisco
can probably cons up a 256MB router and people with worldwide networks can
afford to buy them, and if the business decision merits it, the money will
be spent and the TWD (or TNZ, or TTZ) will stop seeming like a problem.

I don't expect that last to happen, since a lot of allocated but previously
unadvertised networks are getting dusted off and put into use, and a lot
of the growth we're seeing isn't from new NIC allocations at all. This means
the TWD is potentially much larger than it seems today, and some kind of
route filters in 192-space are probably coming soon to a provider near you.

Meanwhile maybe you and Karl D. should finish that router he was talking
about a while back, that represented a full IPv4 of /32's as a bitmap or
whatever it was. If you build it, folks will buy it, and you'll be a hero.

A whacky hero, sort of like the Scarlet Pumpernickel, but a hero anyway.