[1737] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew Partan)
Tue Jan 30 15:12:53 1996
From: asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)
To: gherbert@crl.com (George Herbert)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 14:54:57 -0500 (EST)
Cc: gherbert@crl.com, cidrd@iepg.org, iana@isi.edu, iesg@isi.edu,
local-ir@ripe.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199601301928.AA00431@mail.crl.com> from "George Herbert" at Jan 30, 96 11:28:28 am
> If you're a backbone and connected into the area, within your network
> you advertise the /8 outside the area and the details within the area.
This is the free transit case.
Provider X is connected into the area, so provider X has all of the
more specific routes for that area. Provider X is also connected
outside of the area, so provider X has 3 choices.
1) Provider X can announce the aggregate outside of the area & thus
give free transit to the whole area; or
2) Provider X can announce just provider X's customers outside of the
area, thus defeating the gain from aggregation; or
3) Provider X can be paid by everyone else in the area to provide
transit to the entire area to where ever else Provider X connects to.
So either you can't aggregate (case 2) or you get paid by more customers
(case 3) or you end up with free transit (case 1).
Now lets look at the situation where there are many of these areas and
you have some provider connected to more than one of them (as most big
providers will be). For every area that provider Y is connected to,
provider Y has to carry full routes for the entire area - no
aggregation.
Humm - I think that we just lost again.
--asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)
