North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Cogent move without renumbering

  • From: William Allen Simpson
  • Date: Sun Oct 09 09:49:41 2005

Paul Vixie wrote:
um, no.  or maybe yes.  that's a different issue altogether than what i said.

Paul, that message wasn't directed to you, it was to Randy.

i don't know or care what isp's matter.  i do know what i said, from personal
experience as a co-founder and later president of PAIX, is what i meant.

Again, to Randy.  You and Woody have far more experience in this than
anybody else in the field.

Actually, I was somewhat surprised that after all these years and all
the IX announcements that so few are actually using them.

But not entirely surprised.  In my small rural Mississippi experience,
even though we were the first ISP there (or maybe because we were the
first), we couldn't get a single incoming competitor to agree to
interconnect even with a little mutual frame relay to exchange locally.

Even though we were the only ISP for Ol' Miss students, when Ol' Miss
itself connected via some "free" BellSouth program that kept us from
competing, Ol' Miss was prohibited in the contract from interconnecting
with us.  Meaning all the packets went via Dallas to Atlanta to Jackson
just to cross the street.  The delays were a constant support irritant.

the last idea i heard in that regard was IPv6's A6/DNAME dns architecture,
which i strongly supported, and which would have given IPv6 a qualitative
rather than quantitative advantage over IPv4.

other than that, tli's comments on the thread where he finally claimed that
IPv6 was "too little, too soon", whereas what we needed wasn't more bits
but smarter routing, were the last intelligent words spaketh on this topic.

As to the former, the _original_ IPv6 was supposed to be a minimal change,
rather than a wholesale redesign.  The redesigners were IPv7 and IPv8

As to the latter, speaking as a member of the original IPv6 design team,
that is the same sentiment we shared.  64 bit addresses, smarter routing,
only what was needed.  The original name was "Simpler" IP.

i guess that means, no, i havn't got quick renumbering in my pocket.  but i
do know that the IX's don't have it either.  let's talk about this again
every ten years until one of us dies, OK?
Well, as it was 10 years from IPv4 to IPv6, it's been 12+ now, so maybe
it's time to design the successor to IPv6....  ;-)
William Allen Simpson
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32