[1827] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Fri Feb 2 20:40:40 1996
To: curtis@ans.net
Cc: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>, cidrd@iepg.org, local-ir@ripe.net,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 02 Feb 1996 19:44:16 EST."
<199602030044.TAA19694@brookfield.ans.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 1996 17:27:33 -0800
From: George Herbert <gherbert@crl.com>
>Suranet is at MeaEast. Barrnet is presently an MCI transit customer.
>> There are already geographically limited large providers,
>> they just aren't well aggregated. The transit problems have
>> been dealt with before and will be dealt with again.
>Yes and if every geographically limited provider contracted the same
>transit provider your proposal would have no holes in it, but they
>didn't.
That doesn't matter. What matters is if the geographically
limited providers contracted for transit with providers that touch
down in the area or not. If yes, no problem. If no, then we have
a dead zone and need to figure out how to get the routing working.
MCI is in the Bay Area. I don't know what we'd do for Sura;
are they paying someone for generalized transit, or just peering?
-george william herbert
gherbert@crl.com
