[1706] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Tue Jan 30 00:05:20 1996
To: Dave Siegel <dsiegel@rtd.com>
Cc: gherbert@crl.com (George Herbert), edm@halcyon.com, cidrd@iepg.org,
iana@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu, local-ir@ripe.net, nanog@merit.edu,
gherbert@crl.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 29 Jan 1996 21:40:06 MST."
<199601300440.VAA16398@seagull.rtd.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jan 1996 20:53:57 -0800
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
I wrote:
> 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.
Dave replied:
>However, as Andrew w/UUnet pointed out some time ago, you end up providing
>transit in this way.
>If the goal is to only announce 195/8, any provider numbered in that block
>that is dual-homed with this "deviant CIX" and some other provider suddenly
>starts providing transit for the entire "deviant CIX".
>I highly doubt that this is desirable.
I think that we solved that problem by providing full information for
all of the routes to routers within the area, and none outside.
If you wish to correct me, feel free.
-george
