Frank was the most vocal… the biggest cidr deployment issue was hardware vendors with “baked-in” assumptions about addressing. IPv6 is doing the same thing with its /64 nonsense.
/bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 1March2015Sunday, at 13:37, David Conrad <d...@virtualized.org> wrote: >> On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:26 PM, Owen DeLong <o...@delong.com> wrote: >> >>>> It was the combination of asymmetric, no or few IPs (and NAT), and >>>> bandwidth caps. >>> >>> let's not rewrite history here: IPv4 address scarcity has been a thing >>> since the very early 1990s. Otherwise why would cidr have been created? >> >> CIDR had nothing to do with address scarcity. > > Untrue. > > CIDR was created in response to the proliferation of "class Cs" being > allocated instead of "class Bs". The reason class Cs were being allocated > instead of class Bs was due to projections (I believe by Frank Solensky > and/or Noel Chiappa) that showed we would exhaust the Class B pool by 1990 or > somesuch. This led to the ALE (Address Lifetime Extensions) and CIDRD > working groups that pushed for the allocation of blocks of class Cs instead > of Class Bs. > > CIDR also allowed for more appropriately sized blocks to be allocated instead > of one-size-fits-most of class Bs. This increased address utilization which > likely extended the life of the IPv4 free pool. > > Regards, > -drc >
