[165992] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Filter-based routing table management (was: Re: minimum IPv6
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven Bellovin)
Sat Sep 28 19:10:53 2013
From: Steven Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
In-Reply-To: <0562B8C3-6E9B-483C-B1EC-4151B6072F0C@istaff.org>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:10:29 -0400
To: John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org>
Cc: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com, nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 26, 2013, at 11:07 AM, John Curran <jcurran@istaff.org> wrote:
> On Sep 26, 2013, at 4:52 AM, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
>=20
>> sounds just like folks in 1985, talking about IPv4...
>=20
> If there were ever were a need for an market/settlement model, it is =
with respect=20
> to routing table slots.
https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/piara/index.html, from 1997.
We even had a BoF at an IETF, but you can imagine the reaction it got.
--Steve Bellovin, https://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb
