Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
Tue Jan 30 05:40:06 CET 1996
> > There is at least one very simple response. Set up some deviant CIX, say > > IX195-8, let everyone with a shortish 195/8 prefix connect to it either > > directly through their own provider, or indirectly through some tunnel, and > > have IX195-8 announce reachability of 195/8. That is, in short, altern > > topology to meet addresses when the converse is too hard. KRE detailed > > that for the general case, but it would be even simpler in the case of > > RIPE, since all the allocated network numbers are in the same geographical > > area. > > I still think it would be worthwhile doing a top-down experiment with > this sort of address structure around an easily aggregated geographical > area, say the San Francisco Bay Area in northern California. I brought the > idea up about 6 months ago and it floundered due to disinterest, but it > still seems to be viable. However, as Andrew w/UUnet pointed out some time ago, you end up providing transit in this way. If the goal is to only announce 195/8, any provider numbered in that block that is dual-homed with this "deviant CIX" and some other provider suddenly starts providing transit for the entire "deviant CIX". I highly doubt that this is desirable. Dave -- Dave Siegel President, RTD Systems & Networking, Inc. (520)623-9663 Network Engineer -- Regional/National NSPs (Cisco) dsiegel at rtd.com User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP, http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/ for an ISP."
[ lir-wg Archive ]