On 29 Jan 96 at 20:56, Sean Shapira wrote:

Introduction: -------------

<snip>

- Depend only on voluntary participation by Internet providers.

I hate to say this but... I previously worked for a different place than I do now. Part of the reson I left was the complete "Whats in it for us" attitude there. I have a feeling that that attitude is becoming far too prevelent on the internet. Of late there seems to be a much higher quitient of people running providers who are either slothful, not technically competent enough to do their job, or both. None of these people will renumber unless they have to. (I have a feeling renumbering at the place that I used to work would take at least 2 weeks, given 1 months notice for a handful of Class C's). No matter what you do, people like this are going to be affected by your change and are going to resist it unless they are more or less /forced/ to act. If they get someone with talent to work there they will /forbid/ him from doing the right thing if it takes more than 30 minutes of his time or /not/ doing it has a real identifiable cost to them. /These/ are some of the people who have these small blocks, and these are the people we have to reclaim some space from. It may be politically bad, but if we are going to do some space reclamation, lets do it whole bore.

- Gain for participating providers smaller route tables.

- Assure that no customer of a provider is unduly harmed by the provider's participation.

Can a solution be found that includes all these criteria? Perhaps not, but here's a "straw" proposal nonetheless.

Proposal: ---------

Participating providers divide a swamp into sections. For example, four providers could divide 192/8 into 192.0/10, 192.64/10, 192.128/10, and 192.196/10.

Each provider continues to announce its customer /24 routes, but in addition each announces to the others one of the four /10 routes. For the /10 route which it announces, each provider accepts and keeps all the /24 routes it hears. For the other three, it keeps only the /10 route and filters out any /24 routes it hears.

The resulting routing might be inefficient: provider A might deliver packets to provider B that are eventually destined for a customer of provider C. But packets do continue to reach their ultimate destinations.

Providers get smaller route tables, while customers remain blissfully unaware (and thus continue to pay for service ;-).

Note that four is not a magic number: any two providers could bilaterally enter into an agreement of this type and get reduced route table sizes.

Personal Note: --------------

As an observer on the sidelines of nanog activity, I certainly lack the experience of the "older, wiser heads" who operate the major providers' backbone networks. Those with that experience, and the knowledge accrued therefrom, may well find gaping holes in this straw proposal. I look forward to their criticism, either in traffic on the list, in private email, or in person at the upcoming San Diego meeting.

-- Sean Shapira sds@jazzie.com +1 206 443 2028 <a href="http://www.jazzie.com/sds/">Sean's Home Page</a> Serving the Net since 1990.

Justin Newton | jnewton@hq.mainet.com Internet Administrator # (703) 506-0505 MAI Network Services | Detroit MXP online now #