[1743] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU)
Tue Jan 30 17:35:41 1996
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
To: huitema@pax.inria.fr (Christian Huitema)
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 1996 14:21:21 -0800 (PST)
Cc: smd@cesium.clock.org, Daniel.Karrenberg@ripe.net, cidrd@iepg.org,
iana@ISI.EDU, iesg@ISI.EDU, local-ir@ripe.net, nanog@merit.edu,
smd@sprint.net
In-Reply-To: <v02120d02ad325266b5cc@[138.96.24.178]> from "Christian Huitema" at Jan 29, 96 10:40:34 am
> 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.
>
> Christian Huitema
This was proposed and received mild interest about 9 months back.
I was able to persuade some people that this was a variant of
what was called "provider-based" addressing. It has the interesting
trait of also being "geographic-based" as well, for those that can
still relate to the old labels.
Not enough to take the effort to make it work. I'd be willing
to exert some, for any of the existing or planned exchanges, if
people thought this would be a viable alternative.
--bill
