Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme () multicasttech com>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:10:50 -0500


Hello;

On Feb 15, 2006, at 2:02 PM, Paul Jakma wrote:


On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:

Of course not. Let SBC and Cox obtain a _joint_ ASN and _joint_ address space. Each provider announces the aggregate co-op space via the joint ASN as a downstream.

This is unworkable obviously: Think next about SBC and (say) Verizon customers, then what about those with Cox and Verizon, then SBC/Cox/Verizon. etc.


At first, I thought so too. But, it is a fact that in many locations the number of possible connections is very limited. Here in Western Fairfax, basically just the two mentioned. Why not create aggregation ASN that exploit that ? Otherwise, I think that you are dealing with an explosion in the routing tables as people multihome.

A real objection here would be that
this would tend to lock out new providers (say I wanted to set
up a 802.16 ISP in Northern Virginia - I would not be happy if
everyone had to renumber to use me. But, why not allow new ASN's into the aggregation AS pool if they meet some minimal requirements, and are in the right geographical area. In a sense, you would be trading some local inefficiency in return for a greater global efficiency.

Regards
Marshall Eubanks


regards,
--
Paul Jakma      paul () clubi ie        paul () jakma org       Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
It is amazing how complete is the delusion that beauty is goodness.


  By Date           By Thread  

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