[1703] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Mon Jan 29 22:55:39 1996
To: Ed Morin <edm@halcyon.com>
Cc: cidrd@iepg.org, iana@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu, local-ir@ripe.net,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 29 Jan 1996 11:19:04 PST."
<Pine.ULT.3.91.960129111445.24852B-100000@halcyon.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 19:41:15 -0800
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
> There is at least one very simple response. Set up some deviant CIX, say
> IX195-8, let everyone with a shortish 195/8 prefix connect to it either
> directly through their own provider, or indirectly through some tunnel, and
> have IX195-8 announce reachability of 195/8. That is, in short, altern
> topology to meet addresses when the converse is too hard. KRE detailed
> that for the general case, but it would be even simpler in the case of
> RIPE, since all the allocated network numbers are in the same geographical
> area.
I still think it would be worthwhile doing a top-down experiment with
this sort of address structure around an easily aggregated geographical
area, say the San Francisco Bay Area in northern California. I brought the
idea up about 6 months ago and it floundered due to disinterest, but it
still seems to be viable.
-george william herbert
gherbert@crl.com
