[1934] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stan Barber)
Sat Feb 17 05:24:27 1996
From: sob@academ.com (Stan Barber)
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 1996 04:14:59 CST
To: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>, "Alan B. Clegg" <abc@gateway.com>
Cc: Carl Payne <cpayne@fiber.net>, nanog@merit.edu
> At 03:23 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Alan B. Clegg wrote:
>
> >
> >How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP?
> >"Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was
> >not my argument. My argument is that small ISPs are *NOT* going to
> >cooperate to get larger blocks. They use any tactic to make themselves
> >out to be 'larger fish' in that network bowl. Ever seen a nasty catfight
> >between small local ISPs? I have. Not pretty. Cooperation? Not likely.
> >
>
> This is exactly the type of mentality that the address ownership
> draft addresses, and without the word 'mandatory' appearing anywhere
> in the text.
>
> This attitude of non-cooperation is shameful.
>
> - paul
I have found that given a good description of the problem and how cooperation
can solve it, even the small ISPs (at least in my neck of the woods) will
consider cooperation. Some of them will even if they don't see a direct
benefit to them.
I am not saying that all small ISPs are like that, but I at least know
of some that are.
--
Stan | Academ Consulting Services |internet: sob@academ.com
Olan | For more info on academ, see this |uucp: {mcsun|amdahl}!academ!sob
Barber | URL- http://www.academ.com/academ |Opinions expressed are only mine.
