The Big Squeeze

Michael Dillon michael at
Sun Mar 2 06:34:07 UTC 1997

On Sat, 1 Mar 1997, Craig  Nordin wrote:

> > > Shouldn't the big boys ... be forced to come up with a fairer solution?
> > by who?
> An even playing field where those who can only get a few class C addresses
No such thing. Or did you mean "... where those with longer prefixes are...)

> are not excluded from multiple peering points.  I think that this is fairer
> to *everyone*.

Check the dictionary definition of the word "peer" as used in Canada, the
USA and Australia, *NOT* Britain. Although the British use of the word
does have some relevance if you understand the history behind the House of

> So far, we have two unilateral decisions by those powerful enough to 
> make it stick.  InterNIC protects address space, and Sprint (and others)
> protect router memory.

The Internic hasn't made any unilateral decisions. You might want to check
RFC2050 which can be found at in the "Recommended
Reading" section.

> Isn't there a way, if the InterNIC and the larger backbone operators 
> cooperated, that organizations having smaller armounts of address space
> would not be filtered out?

If you simply want to avoid the filters, use address space in your
upstream provider's aggregate.

Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc.              -                  Fax: +1-250-546-3049             -               E-mail: michael at

More information about the NANOG mailing list