scottw at internic.net
Mon Oct 4 13:23:32 UTC 1993
First someone must provide the definition for : What is a provider?
Do we just give a block to any one who said they are a provider?
This question has been batted around over and over with no answer. It
sound simple but we get some very small operation asking for their own
block. Shouldn't their current next level provider be involved to some
extent with these smaller operations?
> I don't think network service providers should take address blocks
> hierarchically related to allocations from other service providers in
> the US. I don't believe this is an issue of multi homing, it is simply
> the issue of minimizing the probability of customers having to change
> their addresses. If an access provider changes its "long haul"
> provider it would be nice if there were no pressure for the customers
> of the "access" provider to change addresses.
> >From my reading of the Rekhter & Li CIDR paper I believe the allocation
> strategy is to assign blocks to immediate providers ("retail" or
> "access"?) and that those providers get their allocation from the
> regional NIC, which for this purpose would be the InterNic acting as
> the NIC for the U.S.
> >From a U.S. point of view I could see carving the U.S. up into a few
> regions (probably a max of 4) where immediate/access/retail providers for a
> restricted region (provider XXX is a dialup provider for the NY area)
> get their allocation out of those geographically defined blocks rather than a
> generic undifferentiated US block.
More information about the NANOG