1) Own customer routes - these can be any prefix length between /48 and /64 2) Other LIRs aggregates in same RIR region - these are /32 and bigger 3) Supernets for other RIR regions - these are /12 or larger
... geo adressing? :-)
In a way yea. We have known reservations per RIR region.
anyway, about #3, how should be it implemented in practice? Who should carry others route in DFZ between regions, and who should distribute it to others? Should RIPE/ARIN/APNIC etc "pay" someone to make region<>region communication possible?
For the local LIRs I believe they already pay for this - they pay someone for IP transit. So this model seems to work for smaller LIRs - exactly the group of which many have stated they do not have the funding to continiously upgrade their equipment - especially not at the expense of someone else wanting PI space. Apart from picking one transit party over another unless I'm mistaken LIRs already default out to a bigger party these days already. The big boys - the parties that sell IP transit and hence connect in multiple regions - they would not to carry several more routes. I wonder if carrying /12s per region there would be sufficient - probably not. But on the other hand these are usually the parties that already have the bigger routers anyways.
and yeah, the idea is sound and I agree but can't really see an easy way to implement it today...
It is probably far from ideal - just came to me as a means to fix or at least bypass a hurdle for at least the LIRs that can otherwise not keep up with a growing routing table. Jasper Op dit e-mailbericht is een disclaimer van toepassing, welke te vinden is op http://www.espritxb.nl/disclaimer