[7902] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Big Squeeze
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Dillon)
Sun Mar 2 01:41:09 1997
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 22:34:07 -0800 (PST)
From: Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199703020458.XAA20990@hq.vni.net>
On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, Craig Nordin wrote:
> > > Shouldn't the big boys ... be forced to come up with a fairer solution?
> > by who?
>
> An even playing field where those who can only get a few class C addresses
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
No such thing. Or did you mean "... where those with longer prefixes are...)
> are not excluded from multiple peering points. I think that this is fairer
> to *everyone*.
Check the dictionary definition of the word "peer" as used in Canada, the
USA and Australia, *NOT* Britain. Although the British use of the word
does have some relevance if you understand the history behind the House of
Lords.
> So far, we have two unilateral decisions by those powerful enough to
> make it stick. InterNIC protects address space, and Sprint (and others)
> protect router memory.
The Internic hasn't made any unilateral decisions. You might want to check
RFC2050 which can be found at http://www.arin.net in the "Recommended
Reading" section.
> Isn't there a way, if the InterNIC and the larger backbone operators
> cooperated, that organizations having smaller armounts of address space
> would not be filtered out?
If you simply want to avoid the filters, use address space in your
upstream provider's aggregate.
Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
