home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!news!nntpd.lkg.dec.com!nuntius
- From: dee@ranger.enet.dec.com (Donald E. Eastlake, III)
- Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip.domains
- Subject: Re: problems with legal network numbers
- Message-ID: <1992Aug12.211915.17928@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>
- Date: 12 Aug 92 21:19:15 GMT
- References: <92210.125716SURU@TWNMOE10.BITNET>
- Sender: usenet@nntpd.lkg.dec.com (USENET News System)
- Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
- Lines: 28
- X-Useragent: Nuntius v1.1
-
- >From: <SURU@TWNMOE10.BITNET>
- >Subject: problems with legal network numbers
- >
- >Dear Netters,
- >
- > We have problems with some legal IP network numbers which NSFNET
- >refuses to put them in the core gateway. Why? We have been allocated
- >several dozen class B and over 200 class C network numbers. And the
- >authority for the NSFNET refuses to put most of the class C network
- >numbers in the core gateway.
-
- Every additional network number advertised on the NSFNET backbone
- represents
- an additional memory load on every backbone router. Why do you have
- these
- hundred of Class C networks? Why not just use subnets off you Class B
- nets?
- The routing table explosion is the most serious short term problem of
- the Internet
- and if everyone was allowed to put in hundreds of net numbers, the
- Internet would
- collapse in a matter of months. Things will get a bit better when
- CIDR is implemented,
- which will allow groups of nets to be represented by one entry under
- some circumstances,
- but it really won't be solved without the adoption of a new network
- level protocol.
- That's why there is all this work on IP7.
-