Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: filtering long prefixes
From: Michael Dillon <michael () junction net>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 1995 19:59:47 -0700 (PDT)

On Thu, 21 Sep 1995, Sean Doran wrote:

P.S.: This raises an interesting point that has been raised
      in private email to various folks concerned with
      206/8: if local aggregation cannot be done, then
      I suppose it would be easy enough to have some
      well-connected provider somewhere generate a prefix
that is 18 bits long or shorter and deliver to the subnets 
appropriately.  Whether this would be done out of the goodness
of that provider's well-connected heart, or for a fee, is
an interesting question.

Are you suggesting some sort of exchange point or NAP specifically to 
break out longer prefixes from shorter prefixes that cannot be 
topologically aggregated? Would something like this enable people
to maintain provider independent addressing (i.e. no renumbering) by 
merely paying a fee to an exchange point that is well connected and 
settling for less optimal routing?

If this will work in practice, it seems like the perfect tradeoff. On the 
one hand you must renumber when changing providers but you get optimal 
routing. On the other hand, you avoid renumbering but you pay a few bucks 
and have less than optimal routing.

Am I missing anything here?

Michael Dillon                                    Voice: +1-604-546-8022
Memra Software Inc.                                 Fax: +1-604-542-4130
http://www.memra.com                             E-mail: michael () memra com



  By Date           By Thread  

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