Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.
From: asp () uunet uu net (Andrew Partan)
Date: Sun, 24 Sep 1995 02:56:13 -0400 (EDT)

I propose that a large block (say, /8 to /10) be allocated to an
independent authority which will then reallocate growable blocks to
small to mid level ISPs in the northern california region who are
connecting via providers attached to MAE-W, CIX, or PacBell's NAP and
topologically "at" those connect points.  These addresses can then be
filtered out of announcements to routers anywhere else in the world and
replaced with a /8 aggregate announcement; only routers within the
topology zone would require full information on the connected
entities.  These addresses will be relatively easy to dual-home within
the area, yet will have minimal impact on the global routing
infrastructure.

I don't think that this will work for a business viewpoint - someone
will end up giving at least some of these ISPs free transit.

See the attached message that I sent to big-internet earlier this
month.  My comments apply to metro-based addressing or
interconnect-based addressing or similar schemes.
        --asp () uunet uu net (Andrew Partan)

From: asp () uunet uu net (Andrew Partan)
Subject: Geographinc addressing
To: big-internet () munnari OZ AU
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 22:33:41 -0400 (EDT)

People have talked about geographic addressing.

Lets look at this in a bit more detail.

Lets assume that everyone on the Boston area has a geographic address
and that AlterNet and some other ISP (SmallGuy) have some customers in
this area, and that AlterNet and SmallGuy peer at some Boston area
exchange point.

Now AlterNet has to have explicate routes to all sites in the Boston
area - our own Boston customers plus all Boston customers of all other
Boston ISPs.  Humm, I don't see any aggregation here.  But to
continue.

Now the idea is that outside of the Boston area, all ISPs will
aggregate all Boston area routes (for all of their own customers and
all customers of all other Boston ISPs) into one large Boston route.

Now if I peer with some other ISP in some other area (say someone in
San Francisco), then I am supposed to send them just one route for the
Boston area.

I have now suddenly offered transit for SmallGuy between San Francisco
and Boston.

If SmallGuy is not paying me for transit, then I am not going to do
this.

The only way of not doing this is to not advertise the single Boston
route, but rather to advertise all of my Boston area customers
individually - suddenly no more aggregation.

So either there is free transit or no aggregation.

Geographic addressing is not going to fly.
      --asp () uunet uu net (Andrew Partan)



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]