North American Network Operators Group

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


  • From: Tony Li
  • Date: Wed Dec 04 20:13:49 1996

   I can't see how ISPACs are anything but a NOOP.  If members of the
   ISPAC connect to different providers then aggregation can't be

?  Why not?  Yes, they have to provide transit to each other for the full
ISPAC prefix....

   If the smaller providers aggregate they have to all buy transit from
   the same provider or agree to transit each others traffic or build
   their own backbone as an organization at T3 speed in order to peer
   with other providers as a single entity.

Yup.  We expect the most common case would be to touch down at a common set
of interconnects and then peer with other providers.  Yes, there are
details and many options to be considered...

   Other than leveraging buying power what purpose does the ISPAC serve?

It allows us to allocate addresses to smaller ISPs (hey ma, I've got a Unix
box and three modems, I'm gonna be an ISP and get me a /17 from the NIC!)
in a larger block and provide aggregation across all of the ISPs.  It
allows (some) users to change providers within the ISPAC and not have to

   Do we need an RFC for this?

   IMO ISPACs would be almost a NOOP so the RFC would be a NOOP and we
   have enough junk RFCs already.  None of it isn't true so I certainly
   won't waste energy fighting this if you want to push it through.

Curtis, no one hates stupid wasteful RFCs more than I do.  So I'll make you
a deal: if we talk this through (and I mean talk - not just an Ohta-style
declaration of incompetence, thank you) and folks think that it's
pointless, then I'll kill it myself.  In return, I ask that you seriously
consider all of the angles.  Fair 'nuf?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -