Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
George Herbert gherbert at crl.com
Fri Feb 2 00:09:59 CET 1996
>> Backbone, Scott. Backbone. You, Sprint, PSI, Alternet, >> Net-99, etc. All the rest of the world's providers are getting >> transit from some backbone. If all the transit backbones are in the >> area the problem is merely political. > >They aren't... ICM, Pipex, and Dante to name three. Sprintlink >may play nice and handle ICM, what do you plan to do to address the >others? How do Pipex and Dante get global routes right now? >And for the next trick, how do you scale your solution to the next >site? Does your solution require sites of all the backbone providers >to be at each metropolitan exchange? Doesn't this put a limit >in the number of providers that can do this? More likely, it limits the number of areas you can apply this idea cleanly to. Poorly-connected areas won't get such blocks. The more backbones in an area, the easier (technically and politically) to put such a block there. The question is how much you get out of the areas we can do this to... which could be quite a lot. Just the SF Bay Area is a large chunk of the Internet as a whole... it won't be forever, but it is now and its growth patterns could positively or negatively shape how other areas grow later. -george
[ lir-wg Archives ]