[88714] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andre Oppermann)
Wed Feb 15 16:22:06 2006
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:20:21 +0100
From: Andre Oppermann <nanog-list@nrg4u.com>
To: "Edward B. DREGER" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602152056320.19418@pop.ict1.everquick.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Edward B. DREGER wrote:
> PJ> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:46:33 +0000 (GMT)
> PJ> From: Paul Jakma
>
> PJ> Well you don't need to assign an ASN for Cox and SBC to announce a shared
> PJ> prefix for a start off.
>
> Technically true, but administratively not feasible. Coordinating
> private ASNs would be similar to coordining RFC1918 space between
> different entities, although it's definitely a nice goal.
I'd say you already fail at coordinating Cox and SBC before any link
is up and prefixes get announced. I bet they can't even agree on which
of them writes the prefix and ASN application to ARIN.
$realworld always wins.
--
Andre
