Date: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 14:56:24 -0700 From: Paul Traina <pst@cisco.com> Status: RO

...

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.

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.

Excuse me, but it seems as though 500 -> 31 (30 more-specific routes + 1 CIDR block) is still a significant savings.

Best regards,

Paul

Steve Richardson/Merit