Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu Fri, 28 March 2003 19:12 UTC

Received: from ran.ietf.org (ran.ietf.org [10.27.6.60]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12815; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:12:21 -0500 (EST)
Received: from majordomo by ran.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 18yzSv-0002az-00 for ietf-list@ran.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:24:37 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([10.27.2.28] helo=ietf.org) by ran.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 18yzSr-0002Z6-00 for ietf@ran.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:24:33 -0500
Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA12721 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:08:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Received: from turing-police.cc.vt.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing-police.cc.vt.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h2SJB7FD012199; Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:11:07 -0500
Message-Id: <200303281911.h2SJB7FD012199@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.6.2 03/21/2003 with nmh-1.0.4+dev
To: "David R. Oran" <oran@cisco.com>
Cc: alh-ietf@tndh.net, 'The IETF' <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Thinking differently about the site local problem (was: RE: site local addresses (was Re: Fw: Welcome to the InterNAT...))
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:00:31 EST." <435659204.1048860031@[10.32.254.184]>
References: <062101c2f558$fe15e490$ee1a4104@eagleswings> <435659204.1048860031@[10.32.254.184]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="==_Exmh_-400319176P"; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:11:07 -0500
Sender: owner-ietf@ietf.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:00:31 EST, "David R. Oran" said:
> Did anybody consider just handing out a /48 (or a bit smaller) 
> automagically with each DNS registration?

Routing Table Bloat.  If you can figure out how to do this in a CIDR
aggregation context, or otherwise work around the table problem, the
IETF and NANOG will quite certainly jointly nominate you for sainthood. ;)