[1520] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dave Siegel)
Thu Jan 25 13:09:44 1996
From: Dave Siegel <dave@rtd.net>
To: Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 1996 10:45:54 -0700 (MST)
Cc: forrestc@imach.com, postel@isi.edu, nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@IEPG.ORG,
iepg@IEPG.ORG, iab@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu, iana@isi.edu,
netreg@internic.net, ncc@ripe.net, hostmaster@apnic.net
In-Reply-To: <9601251001.AA16900@ncc.ripe.net> from "Daniel Karrenberg" at Jan 25, 96 11:01:48 am
> > 2) Convince the big ISP's to permit prefixes longer than /18 in the
> > routing tables.
>
> Again:
>
> Why is this discussion so fixed about basing policies strictly on
> prefix length? And also on the value of /18 which just *happens*
> to be the value chosen by *one particular* ISP?
>
> This is not a fact. It is a possibility.
>
> Another possibility is to watch the total number of prefixes routed,
> possibly charge for routing each one, and not arbitrarily restrict
> prefix length.
And who get's to charge for carrying the routes?
Do I? Just because I carry a full routing table?
Or do just the "big" guys. How do you then classify "big?"
If some providers start charging their customers by prefix, then some providers
will have to offer flat rate charges for any number of prefix's, or will have
to at least vary the billing scheme, or it might look like collusion.
The issues get pretty sticky. Filtering by prefix length is an arbitrary
determination that helps get the point across.
Dave
--
Dave Siegel President, RTD Systems & Networking, Inc.
(520)623-9663 Network Engineer -- Regional/National NSPs (Cisco)
dsiegel@rtd.com User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP,
http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ for an ISP."
