NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
michael at memra.com
Wed Apr 3 03:30:03 UTC 1996
On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Paul Ferguson wrote:
> 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.
If this is done with a private two-party exchange point, then can't it
also be done without any change in the global routing table?
Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael at memra.com
More information about the NANOG