North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
> I propose that a large block (say, /8 to /10) be allocated to an > independent authority which will then reallocate growable blocks to > small to mid level ISPs in the northern california region who are > connecting via providers attached to MAE-W, CIX, or PacBell's NAP and > topologically "at" those connect points. These addresses can then be > filtered out of announcements to routers anywhere else in the world and > replaced with a /8 aggregate announcement; only routers within the > topology zone would require full information on the connected > entities. These addresses will be relatively easy to dual-home within > the area, yet will have minimal impact on the global routing > infrastructure. I don't think that this will work for a business viewpoint - someone will end up giving at least some of these ISPs free transit. See the attached message that I sent to big-internet earlier this month. My comments apply to metro-based addressing or interconnect-based addressing or similar schemes. [email protected] (Andrew Partan) > From: [email protected] (Andrew Partan) > Subject: Geographinc addressing > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 22:33:41 -0400 (EDT) > > People have talked about geographic addressing. > > Lets look at this in a bit more detail. > > Lets assume that everyone on the Boston area has a geographic address > and that AlterNet and some other ISP (SmallGuy) have some customers in > this area, and that AlterNet and SmallGuy peer at some Boston area > exchange point. > > Now AlterNet has to have explicate routes to all sites in the Boston > area - our own Boston customers plus all Boston customers of all other > Boston ISPs. Humm, I don't see any aggregation here. But to > continue. > > Now the idea is that outside of the Boston area, all ISPs will > aggregate all Boston area routes (for all of their own customers and > all customers of all other Boston ISPs) into one large Boston route. > > Now if I peer with some other ISP in some other area (say someone in > San Francisco), then I am supposed to send them just one route for the > Boston area. > > I have now suddenly offered transit for SmallGuy between San Francisco > and Boston. > > If SmallGuy is not paying me for transit, then I am not going to do > this. > > The only way of not doing this is to not advertise the single Boston > route, but rather to advertise all of my Boston area customers > individually - suddenly no more aggregation. > > So either there is free transit or no aggregation. > > Geographic addressing is not going to fly. > [email protected] (Andrew Partan)