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