The Big Squeeze
huddle at mci.net
Sun Mar 2 04:33:41 UTC 1997
At 07:31 PM 2/26/97 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
>As long as a provider can get their own /19 I have no problem with
>prefix filtering at the /19 level.
>The problem comes about when big ISPs filter at /19s *AND* the allocators
>of space refuse to give ISPs /19s.
These two goals seem to be at odds in the current system for
address allocation. How would you change the system to allow
people to aquire address space that they need and get it
The address allocation scheme is geared towards trying to promote
utilization of IP space, thus the sorta "take just what you
The filters that you talk of seem to me to be crude
proxies for controlling routing space on a particular
providers network, this seems to me to be a reasonable
thing (i.e. they have to make their network work).
If different providers were to sell routing "slots"
on their network such that an ISP could guarantee that
their announcements would be accepted (regardless of
address length) this would seem to solve the problems
of both those that can't "justify" a big block and
those of the providers that want to control the use
of their resources on their network as well.
It appears that you're primary argument is one of
fairness and level playing field for all comers
regardless of size, and I think this is a worthy
goal if it can be done technically.
More information about the NANOG