North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Address clustering intuition
On Thu, 09 Nov 1995 16:17:30 -0700 "Walter O. Haas" wrote: > >No, this does not work. Looking at Europe, I know of several ISPs > >to which the shortest path from here (Amsterdam, the Netherlands) > >is via MAE-EAST; they either don't have external connectivity > >on the continent itself, or we have no provider willing to provide > >transit between here and their continental connectivity. > > It would seem that given a free market these providers would find it > cheaper to connect locally than make two hops across the Atlantic. Even > if a few go the long way, I would think cost considerations would keep > the number of such providers down, and limit them to the East Coast of > the US. This would accomplish the same effect of limiting the number > of routers that would need to know this detail It does not work that way; tariffs are weird beasts. I can't be very specific without naming names which I do not want to do without permission. Realize that an ISP can be 'in business' if they hook up via an US ISP; local connectivity is 'extra cost' the advantage of which only becomes clear with reasonable traffic levels. > >There is a second, similar reason: assume that A and B each operate > >in the same area. They use different carriers for transit to MAE-EAST. > >Who of these is going to announce the aggregated announcement? > >If A does it, it pays for the transit for customers of B. > >If they both announce it, then they still pay for eachother's > >traffic. > > Presumably MAE-EAST would know enough detail about who was connected to > A and B to make the right decision on transit carrier. If A and B were > far enough away from MAE-EAST then they would probably find it more > economic to make an interchange locally. The mae-east boxes are the ones most in danger right now, so your suggestion does not help as they would need to know this amount of detail (read: no aggregation), and thus still need to carry the routes we want to get rid of via Europe. Said otherwise: if you would hear different parts of 'europe' via UUnet, EUnet, Pipex, PSI and others, would you still know how to aggregate these for use at MAE-EAST? Walter, I do not want to offend you, but this has been hashed out several times already. You may want to scan the archives of cidrd, nanog and other lists. Geert Jan PS: asp: I don't have records of the big-I discussion you refer to. If it can be easily summarized, then that would make a good start in making the FAQ happen.