[3171] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Sprint's route filters and Europe
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Yakov Rekhter)
Mon Jun 17 15:50:00 1996
To: owen@DeLong.SJ.CA.US (Owen DeLong)
cc: iepg@iepg.org, nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 17 Jun 96 09:29:39 PDT."
<199606171629.JAA02552@dixon.DeLong.SJ.CA.US>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 96 12:44:47 PDT
From: Yakov Rekhter <yakov@cisco.com>
Owen,
> > >From my (admittedly biased) perspective, it would seem there are two
> > options:
> >
> > A) The socalist approach
> > B) The capitalist approach
> >
> And, generally, I would have to say that for a resource such as IP addresses
> and Internet registration services, option A is certainly better suited
> to the task at hand.
Why option A is "certainly better suited" ?
> > Every time someone (who me?) brings up option B, we go chasing merrily
> > down one or more of the following ratholes:
> >
> > 1) we need to conserve route table space, lets charge for that,
> > not addresses (irrelevant)
>
> Not irrelevant. Highly relevant, but not the right solution to that
> problem either.
Why this is not "the right solution" ?
>
> > 2) AT&T (or some other evil speculator) will buy up all the
> > address space (and ISPs are just going to sit idly by?)
>
> Depending on the situation, it might be difficult for them to do anything
> effective about it. It is a real danger, and could easily occur.
Why do you think this is "a real danger, and could easily occur" ?
Yakov.
