The Big Squeeze

Craig Nordin cnordin at
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 
> routed?
> 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.  
> -scott


Craig Nordin -- cnordin at  Virtual Networks

More information about the NANOG mailing list