ISP Domain Auction
Craig A. Huegen
c-huegen at quad.quadrunner.com
Tue Feb 13 03:15:38 UTC 1996
On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, mike wrote:
> Shouldn't we here see how we get our act together, e.g. peering (why in
> this community are there people not peering, putting up 'rules' etc, when
> peering would just make everyone happy since the routing landscape is way
> simpler when there are lots of direct links), and of course, the same
> always: instead of creating unnecessary friction to put into the address
> allocation mechanism a measure to satisfy building up ISP/NSP businesses.
> I agree that there might some people need more restrictive routing, but
> restrictions must always be implemented in a way not to create injustice
> or even only extra problems.
Well, the prefix-filtering policies of the unnamed ISP you mention above
is definitely a problem. However, I don't see it as a problem for me,
because most ISP's are sensible enough to route that kind of traffic.
I look at it as a problem for customers who use that unnamed ISP. Those
customers should contact their providers and pressure them to get
alternative links (or, in the case they are a direct customer of this unnamed
ISP, change to another provider or obtain another link and become
I think that right now, we shouldn't be too concerned with "CIDRize or
DIE!". At this point, we should be helping other entities out--you're
not FORCING them to renumber by making their networks non-routable
within one organization--you're screwing your customers out of optimal
connectivity to any particular site.
The Internet has gotten too much away from the original purpose, to share
information. It has gone to a vast commercial marketing symbol, where
most companies really don't care about other entities--"Why should we
help this group? They're customers of ISP X!"
Now, if there's a sincere need to filter, say, because you still use
AGS+'s with CSC/3's and 16 MB of RAM and your poor 1988-age equipment
can't handle it, then fine...
More information about the NANOG