The Big Squeeze
michael at memra.com
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 http://www.arin.net in the "Recommended
> 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
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael at memra.com
More information about the NANOG