CIDR based routing (was: legal issues, courts etc)

Craig Anderson wrote:

...

From craig Fri Nov 20 09:24:10 1998 Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 09:23:17 +1300 From: Chris Wedgwood To: Craig Anderson , don(a)daedalus.co.nz Cc: nznog(a)list.waikato.ac.nz Subject: Re: legal issues, courts etc

...

...

Most specifically dampening.

I don't think that makes routing faster or easier, it just makes life easier for people when bad things might otherwise happen.

Dampening was introduced to mitigate the effects (like 100% CPU load) route flapping had on hardware resources. Things like cache invalidation caused by route flaps certainly directly affect routing performance.

...

But you beleive that any /24 route should be considered completely portable in most circumstances?

Not at all. /24's where ownership is rightly assumed and where the /24 is in a block where the minimum allocation size was /24. For the NZGATE addresses we are asking that the minimum allocation size be recognised as /24.

People should consider the effects of dampening and route flaps as part of the picture here as well as the simple boolean "Can I get my /24 into the backbone tables?" While the answer may be a simplistic 'yes', if a /24 flaps my understanding is that this may be penalised more heavily for dampening than prefixes of /19 or less. Where that is the case then an isolated /24 is a less desirable address block than address space contained in a larger prefix. -- Mailto:Andy.Linton(a)netlink.net.nz Tel: +64 4 494 6162 Post: Netlink, PO Box 5358, Lambton Quay, Wellington, New Zealand -- --------- To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog