[1799] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Thu Feb 1 18:25:45 1996
To: Scott Huddle <huddle@mci.net>
Cc: gherbert@crl.com, cidrd@iepg.org, local-ir@ripe.net, nanog@merit.edu,
gherbert@crl.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 01 Feb 1996 17:28:00 EST."
<199602012228.RAA16380@new6.Reston.mci.net>
Date: Thu, 01 Feb 1996 15:09:59 -0800
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
>> Backbone, Scott. Backbone. You, Sprint, PSI, Alternet,
>> Net-99, etc. All the rest of the world's providers are getting
>> transit from some backbone. If all the transit backbones are in the
>> area the problem is merely political.
>
>They aren't... ICM, Pipex, and Dante to name three. Sprintlink
>may play nice and handle ICM, what do you plan to do to address the
>others?
How do Pipex and Dante get global routes right now?
>And for the next trick, how do you scale your solution to the next
>site? Does your solution require sites of all the backbone providers
>to be at each metropolitan exchange? Doesn't this put a limit
>in the number of providers that can do this?
More likely, it limits the number of areas you can apply this
idea cleanly to. Poorly-connected areas won't get such blocks.
The more backbones in an area, the easier (technically and politically)
to put such a block there. The question is how much you get out
of the areas we can do this to... which could be quite a lot.
Just the SF Bay Area is a large chunk of the Internet as a whole...
it won't be forever, but it is now and its growth patterns could
positively or negatively shape how other areas grow later.
-george
