How is this related to my point (assuming this was a reply to my message in the first place)?
| Artyom Gavrichenkov | gpg: 2deb 97b1 0a3c 151d b67f 1ee5 00e7 94bc 4d08 9191 | mailto: [email protected] | fb: ximaera | telegram: xima_era | skype: xima_era | tel. no: +7 916 515 49 58 On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> wrote: > a bit of history for those with short term vision > > 1995, and large providers were running out of ram to hold the table. > sprint was the closest to the edge and falling over; but others were > not far behind and could smell the coffee. these were the days > where we all intimately knew each others' networks. > > nobody's management was gonna pay to upgrade hundreds of routers. > sean had to filter to keep from crashing. others, such as asp and > i, were also filtering, as much to keep the table down as to protect > from idiots such as vinnie from killing us (7007 incident). > > so the providers who were concerned and the rirs met at the danvers > ietf and agreed to only let /19s and shorter, and swamp space /24s, > through if the rirs would please not allocate longer prefixes for a > couple of years until routers could be upgraded. rfc 2050 was the > result. > > eventually, like six yesrs later, customers complained enough that > the filters had to be removed. when a big customer or two wanted to > get to someone with a /24 in old B space, the filters fell. > business wins. > > when v4 runout forces folk to put /28s in frnt of nats, the folk with > shiny shoes will have a little chat with senior leadership, and they'll > cough up the bucks to hold the routes. history repeats. > > like the ethernet mfrs tell us that we need to use 4g, 40g, ... instead > of 10g, 100g, 1tb, ... life adds zeros. > > randy
