Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!tcp-ip
From: mike@BRL.ARPA (Mike Muuss)
Newsgroups: mod.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re:  Gateway Slots
Message-ID: <8512140357.AA02784@ucbvax.berkeley.edu>
Date: Fri, 13-Dec-85 21:45:29 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8512140357.AA02784
Posted: Fri Dec 13 21:45:29 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Dec-85 07:11:23 EST
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 41
Approved: tcp-ip@sri-nic.arpa

The the response form issued with a new network number includes a statement
about how your network can not be connected to the core without prior
approval from the NIC, and that you also need to become part of a registered
Autonomous System.

However, there is presently no room for either the code or data needed to
validate A.S.  numbers in the core gateways, so there is nothing which
prevents people from just plugging in.

The source of the current problem is that now that 4.2BSD UNIX is capable of
being a full EGP gateway, lots of people are getting LANs and connecting
them.  Indeed, the single most common gateway system on the InterNet these
days is 4.2BSD, somewhat to the surprise of the original networking folks.

Implementing subnets will take some of the strain off (if we can do it fast
enough), but converting to subnet numbers requires a massive change in all
local host addresses.  Also, for those of us who purchase TCP-speaking
devices (like laser printers, LISP machines, etc) from random vendors, we
must depend on the vendor to implement subnet support.  As the RFC
documenting the subnet strategy is fairly recent, not all vendors have taken
notice yet.  Some vendors (most notably Excelan) are still struggling with
things like IP routing and ICMP (sigh), and their boards are found in many
current "off the shelf" products.

We at BRL are working towards reducing the number of network numbers we
require, but currently I expect it to take us another month or two to really
make progress in this direction; others will need similar time to undertake
implementing subnet routing within their gateways, and then convert their
hosts.  I would wager that the subnet tide will not turn until 4.3BSD is in
widespread use.  Even if 4.3 tapes were to teleport out to all 4.2 sites
tomorrow, it would take most sites a month or two to switch, so 4.3 is not
the cure to our immediate woes.

I predict that if everything goes well, and all the core gateways are
enhanced to 11/23 systems, and most sites drop back to using just one or two
net numbers, that we might just barely survive the continued InterNet growth
until the GGP replacement (core IGP, really) is designed and implemented.
Maybe.

	Best,
	 -Mike