[1050] in North American Network Operators' Group
Routing wars pending?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Karrenberg)
Thu Nov 16 08:36:37 1995
To: Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu, HANK@taunivm.tau.ac.il,
nanog@dune.silkroad.com, big-internet@munnari.oz.au, cidrd@iepg.org,
little@faline.bellcore.com (Mike Little)
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 15 Nov 1995 17:12:06 CST.
<199511152312.RAA00426@gaijin.mid.net>
From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 14:26:17 +0100
> Alan Hannan <alan@gi.net> writes:
>
> What are the correlations and contrasts between our current
> backbone routing problems (wrt space and # of routes) and the FCC
> decision several years ago to make 1-800 numbers portable.
Correlations are manifold.
The most striking contrasts:
- Implementation on the 1-800 numbers was straightforward
- number space quite small
- routing fairly centralised
- on the level of the 1-800 address space there is
quite static routing, I understand that database updates
at that time were done by shipping magtapes
- The problem was local to one country and jurisdiction
due to the addressing hierarchy
> I ask because I see the a potential scenario when we are forced to
> play hardball wrt non portability of new CIDR routes. Imagine
> this... Big corporation leaves us having been allocated /21 of
> address space. We tell them to get new IP numbers from their provider
> and backbone smart people make it known they won't propogate
> routes (you wouldn't, right Sean?). They say get stuffed, and get
> a congress person to propose a bill that all IP numbers are
> portable. This bill passes.
They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they?
Daniel
