The Big Squeeze
cnordin at vni.net
Sun Mar 2 04:13:46 UTC 1997
Shouldn't the big boys (the ones who started all of this filtering)
and the InterNIC be forced to come up with a fairer solution? At
least if they don't do so voluntarily?
> 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
> need" methodology.
> 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.
Craig Nordin -- cnordin at vni.net Virtual Networks http://www.vni.net
More information about the NANOG