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