Justin Newton wrote:
On 29 Jan 96 at 20:56, Sean Shapira wrote:
- Depend only on voluntary participation by Internet providers.
Of late there seems to be a much higher [quotient] of people running providers who are either slothful, not technically competent enough to do their job, or both.
The criterion was probably poorly expressed: "Internet providers" was intended primarily to indicated those operating large backbone (default-less) networks.
[small access providers] are the people we have to reclaim some space from.
I question this "have to" claim. Who has the need? Apparently backbone providers with over-full router tables. Could they decrease the size of their router tables without harming (and thus possibly losing) their customers? I believe they could.
It may be politically bad, but if we are going to do some space reclamation, lets do it whole bore.
Compliance is usually much easier to acheive when it is in the financial best interests of those who are asked comply. Can anyone make the case that it will be in the financial best interests of backbone providers to tell their customers the service they have purchased in the past (global routing for swamp addresses) is no longer available? -- Sean Shapira sds@jazzie.com +1 206 443 2028