Routing wars pending?

Daniel Karrenberg Daniel.Karrenberg at
Thu Nov 16 13:26:17 UTC 1995

  > Alan Hannan <alan at> writes:
  >   What are the correlations and contrasts between our current
  >   backbone routing problems (wrt space and # of routes) and the FCC
  >   decision several years ago to make 1-800 numbers portable.

Correlations are manifold.

The most striking contrasts: 

	- Implementation on the 1-800 numbers was straightforward

		- number space quite small
		- routing fairly centralised
		- on the level of the 1-800 address space there is 
                  quite static routing, I understand that database updates 
		  at that time were done by shipping magtapes

	- The problem was local to one country and jurisdiction 
          due to the addressing hierarchy
  >   I ask because I see the a potential scenario when we are forced to
  >   play hardball wrt non portability of new CIDR routes.  Imagine
  >   this...  Big corporation leaves us having been allocated /21 of
  >   address space.  We tell them to get new IP numbers from their provider
  >   and backbone smart people make it known they won't propogate
  >   routes (you wouldn't, right Sean?).  They say get stuffed, and get
  >   a congress person to propose a bill that all IP numbers are
  >   portable.  This bill passes.

They also passed a bill once to make PI 3 or some such, didn't they?


More information about the NANOG mailing list