NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role

Paul Ferguson pferguso at
Wed Apr 3 00:46:53 UTC 1996

At 04:26 PM 4/2/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:

>On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>> If the providers were to relax the requirements to renumber when
>> moving to another provider or when dual homing, the problem of the 
>> TWD would not be growing at its current rate.
>Hmmm.... ISP has T1 to SPRINT, wants to switch to MCI, SPRINT says, OK
>you have a choice, either renumber or pay us to route your traffic to MCI 
>via a private exchange point so we don't have to knock holes in our 
>aggregate. That way you can use SPRINT's addresses and MCI's T1, but for 
>a fee.

And the global routing table grows.

- paul

More information about the NANOG mailing list