To: Paul Traina <pst@cisco.com> Cc: Peter Lothberg <roll@stupi.se>, David R Conrad <davidc@terminus.iij.ad.jp>, Vadim Antonov <avg@sprint.net>, ALH@eagle.es.net, bgpd@merit.edu, eowg@fnc.gov, routing-wg@ripe.net, yakov@watson.ibm.com Subject: Re: 20402 routing entries Date: Fri, 15 Apr 94 13:15:20 -0700 From: "Milo S. Medin" (NASA ARC NSI Office) <medin@nsipo.nasa.gov>
That's all fine and good, however it has little to do with the issue of reducing the number of routes. Your worst case of 500 staying 500 is more likely due to problems in getting BGP4 deployed than any AUP issue.
You hurt your credibility when you try and blame all the world's problems on AUP's.
I'm sorry to disagree with you Milo, but I think you were the one who brought up the concept of going from 500 to 2 vs 500 to 1, with the "2" being necessary because Andrew's customers needed to migrate into an AUP block vs a non-AUP block. If I misunderstood what you were saying, could you please clarify? My point is the same one that Andrew was making -- right now, he's got customers randomly scatters as AUP and non-AUP. For every non-AUP net, he's got, we end up poking serious holes into CIDR efficiency. All it takes is, say, 30 randomly scattered holes to make a complete mess of the 500 to 2 argument.
We need to try and make sure we have stable BGP4 code bases out there in multiple vendor's routers, and understand how all the backdoors are supposed to be handled first...
I think we're already past that point, there are multiple vendors with reasonably stable code. Best regards, Paul