On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 00:06 +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On 25 feb 2008, at 23:43, Scott Brim wrote: > > >> What I'm thinking is that for any given part of the address space, > >> there would be a fixed prefix length. So for 192.0.0.0/8 /24, for > >> 64.0.0.0/8 /20, for 17.0.0.0/8 /8... So in theory, there would be > >> no overlap. There could still be if the filters weren't set up > >> properly, which would probably have to resolved when translating > >> the RIB into the FIB. > > > Isn't this just what we did pre-CIDR? > > Yes, except that it wouldn't be hardcoded into the IP stack but > enforced through filters.
That starts to sound a lot like a suggestion from Proteon related to BGP-research in the early 90s. Their idea was that all IDRs would need to form a "relationship" with all relevant address-authorities (now registries) for the network within which it operates. For a DFZ-router today that would translate into a private registry, all RIRs and IANA. Via a simple protocol routers would be fed a list of address-blocks and the corresponding smallest allocation block within. In today's network that would enable dynamic rules that for example could block anything smaller that RIR allocation-blocks globally, while permitting +n TE-bits from neighbors. Although reasonable for recent (>2000) allocations it may not be an answer for legacy-allocations ... and it only addresses a small part of the problem. //per -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
