[493] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tony Li)
Sun Sep 24 04:39:57 1995
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 01:38:22 -0700
From: Tony Li <tli@cisco.com>
To: gherbert@crl.com
Cc: asp@uunet.uu.net, gherbert@crl.com, nanog@MERIT.EDU, cidrd@iepg.org,
gherbert@crl.com
In-Reply-To: <199509240733.AA03817@mail.crl.com> (message from George Herbert on Sun, 24 Sep 1995 00:35:05 -0700)
Resent-From: nanog@MERIT.EDU
George,
Let's take a clear example:
Let's use 39/8 as the Bay area prefix.
Suppose that mountainview.net gets 39.1.1/24 (just to be simple).
Suppose that they happen to connect to Fix-west but not to the SF NAP.
Suppose that sunnyvale.net gets 39.100.100/24 and connects to the NAP
and not to Fix-west.
Now, we can't summarize 39/8 into the backbones at either of the two
locations. Consider what happens if a backbone with only 39/8
delivers a packet to the NAP for mountainview.net. What happens?
In fact, we have to move the AAB out. And we have to at least subsume
a biconnected (or triconnected?) subgraph of the backbones that
contains the interconnects.
The result is that we either summarize 39/8 to the backbones and
someone provides free transit between the NAP and Fix-West, or we get
no effective aggregation from 39/8.
Tony
