[6416] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISPACs
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Curtis Villamizar)
Wed Dec 4 20:03:14 1996
To: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu, cidrd@iepg.org, metro@nlanr.net
Reply-To: curtis@ans.net
In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 26 Nov 1996 12:49:12 PST."
<199611262049.MAA05750@chimp.jnx.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 1996 19:42:29 -0500
From: Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net>
In message <199611262049.MAA05750@chimp.jnx.com>, Tony Li writes:
>
> Folks,
>
> I'd like to point your attention to the following ID. I would appreciate
> any comments. For the lack of a better place, I'd ask that discussion be
> on the cidrd mailing list.
>
> Thanks,
> Tony
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>
> Title : Internet Service Provider Address Coalitions (ISPACs)
> Author(s) : T. Li
> Filename : draft-li-ispac-00.txt
> Pages : 5
> Date : 11/25/1996
Tony,
I can't see how ISPACs are anything but a NOOP. If members of the
ISPAC connect to different providers then aggregation can't be
performed. They can get the address space and suballocate /24s to
each other but if the /24s can't be aggregated and are unroutable
what's the point?
If the smaller providers aggregate they have to all buy transit from
the same provider or agree to transit each others traffic or build
their own backbone as an organization at T3 speed in order to peer
with other providers as a single entity.
Other than leveraging buying power what purpose does the ISPAC serve?
Do we need an RFC for this?
IMO ISPACs would be almost a NOOP so the RFC would be a NOOP and we
have enough junk RFCs already. None of it isn't true so I certainly
won't waste energy fighting this if you want to push it through.
Curtis
