North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

  • From: George Herbert
  • Date: Thu Feb 01 19:34:50 1996

>> Backbone, Scott.  Backbone.  You, Sprint, PSI, Alternet,
>> Net-99, etc.  All the rest of the world's providers are getting
>> transit from some backbone.  If all the transit backbones are in the 
>> area the problem is merely political.
>They aren't... ICM, Pipex, and Dante to name three.  Sprintlink
>may play nice and handle ICM, what do you plan to do to address the

How do Pipex and Dante get global routes right now?

>And for the next trick, how do you scale your solution to the next
>site?  Does your solution require sites of all the backbone providers
>to be at each metropolitan exchange?  Doesn't this put a limit
>in the number of providers that can do this?   

More likely, it limits the number of areas you can apply this
idea cleanly to.  Poorly-connected areas won't get such blocks.
The more backbones in an area, the easier (technically and politically)
to put such a block there.  The question is how much you get out
of the areas we can do this to... which could be quite a lot.
Just the SF Bay Area is a large chunk of the Internet as a whole...
it won't be forever, but it is now and its growth patterns could
positively or negatively shape how other areas grow later.