[43032] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verio Peering Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Bligh)
Fri Sep 28 15:45:30 2001
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 20:42:26 +0100
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com>,
"Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Message-ID: <1205592780.1001709746@[195.224.237.69]>
In-Reply-To: <20010928095710.A7249@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--On Friday, 28 September, 2001 9:57 AM -0700 "Majdi S. Abbas"
<msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com> wrote:
> Actually, it seems to me that your argument is that ARIN/RIPE/APNIC
> policy prevents people from multihoming.
As per a discussion on this list a month or two ago, the root
cause of the 'difficult judgments' is, IMHO, that multihoming
relies on extension of the global L3 routing table. It need not
do so for every application, subject to some intelligence being
applied to protocols and networks.
> Blaming Verio for the RIR's allocation policy simply does
> not make sense.
So s/RIR/IETF/ :-)
--
Alex Bligh
Personal Capacity
