North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: The Big Squeeze
On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, Craig Nordin wrote: > > > Shouldn't the big boys ... be forced to come up with a fairer solution? > > by who? > > An even playing field where those who can only get a few class C addresses ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No such thing. Or did you mean "... where those with longer prefixes are...) > are not excluded from multiple peering points. I think that this is fairer > to *everyone*. Check the dictionary definition of the word "peer" as used in Canada, the USA and Australia, *NOT* Britain. Although the British use of the word does have some relevance if you understand the history behind the House of Lords. > So far, we have two unilateral decisions by those powerful enough to > make it stick. InterNIC protects address space, and Sprint (and others) > protect router memory. The Internic hasn't made any unilateral decisions. You might want to check RFC2050 which can be found at http://www.arin.net in the "Recommended Reading" section. > Isn't there a way, if the InterNIC and the larger backbone operators > cooperated, that organizations having smaller armounts of address space > would not be filtered out? If you simply want to avoid the filters, use address space in your upstream provider's aggregate. Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049 http://www.memra.com - E-mail: [email protected] - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|