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 ifeveryone 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.
Current thread:
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...), (continued)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Chris Adams (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Edward B. DREGER (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Andre Oppermann (Feb 15)
- RE: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Ejay Hire (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Edward B. DREGER (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Andre Oppermann (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Edward B. DREGER (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Edward B. DREGER (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) John Payne (Feb 16)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Edward B. DREGER (Feb 16)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Marshall Eubanks (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Paul Jakma (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Edward B. DREGER (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Andre Oppermann (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Edward B. DREGER (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Chip Mefford (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Edward B. DREGER (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Paul Jakma (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Edward B. DREGER (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) John A. Kilpatrick (Feb 15)
- Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...) Edward B. DREGER (Feb 15)