[75796] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ULA and RIR cost-recovery
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Wed Nov 24 15:13:44 2004
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>
To: "Tony Hain" <alh-ietf@tndh.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, "'Thomas Narten'" <narten@us.ibm.com>,
"'Margaret Wasserman'" <margaret@thingmagic.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:40:50 PST."
<20041124194103.1891658BDF@segue.merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:12:42 -0500
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In message <20041124194103.1891658BDF@segue.merit.edu>, "Tony Hain" writes:
>
>My to-do list for the next couple of weeks has an item to ask for a BoF at
>the next IETF on an interim moderately aggregatible PI approach. I cc'd the
>Internet ADs since this is as good a time as any to start the process. I
>have a proposal on the table, but I care more about a real solution than I
>do about that specific approach. At the same time I continue to get comments
>like: 'Your geographic addressing proposal (draft-hain-ipv6-pi-addr-07.txt)
>is very attractive to us (it's pretty much ideal, really)', so it probably
>makes a good starting point for discussion.
>
The problem with this scheme is that it's only aggregatable if there's
some POP that lots of carriers connect to in the proper geographic
areas. What is the carriers' incentive to show up -- peer? -- at such
points, rather than following today's practices?
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb
