Scott Bradner supposedly said:
Shouldn't the big boys ... be forced to come up with a fairer solution?
by who?
Scott
More importantly I would like to know who the big boys are. I would would really like to meet them someday :-} ---> Phil
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 are not excluded from multiple peering points. I think that this is fairer to *everyone*. 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. 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? Or is it technically impossible?
Craig Nordin supposedly said:
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 are not excluded from multiple peering points. I think that this is fairer to *everyone*.
So far, we have two unilateral decisions by those powerful enough to
Under current routing protocols, and current router hardware, the current "wisdom" is that there will be a meltdown somewhere between 60 & 100,000 routes depending on who you ask. The /19 filtering is basically a defense mechanism to protect current infrastructure. There are a number of vendors who claim equipment either just becoming available or will be available shortly that can double or triple these limits. As to how long such an upgrade will take to hit the major backbone providers and be field tested, I would suspect 18 months or so. ---> Phil
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
On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, Michael Dillon wrote:
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.
Unfortunately, the HTML for that link is wrong. Here is the right place http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc2050.txt Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
participants (4)
-
Craig Nordin -
Michael Dillon -
Philip J. Nesser II -
Scott Bradner