[498] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU)
Sun Sep 24 12:36:52 1995
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
To: asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 09:32:55 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: gherbert@crl.com, nanog@MERIT.EDU, cidrd@iepg.org
In-Reply-To: <QQzinr26824.199509240656@rodan.UU.NET> from "Andrew Partan" at Sep 24, 95 02:56:13 am
Resent-From: nanog@MERIT.EDU
>
> I don't think that this will work for a business viewpoint - someone
> will end up giving at least some of these ISPs free transit.
>
> See the attached message that I sent to big-internet earlier this
> month. My comments apply to metro-based addressing or
> interconnect-based addressing or similar schemes.
> --asp@uunet.uu.net (Andrew Partan)
>
The one way around this is to have all of the players participating
in such a scheme form a "co-op", so that "long-haul" folks only
sign one transit agreement, with the co-op.
A few tweeks to the MPLA's at the AADS and PACBELL NAPS, regarding
this technique might fly. At least they are a starting point for such
discussions.
--
--bill
