Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
It only gets really touchy if few of the backbones touch down in the area.
Unfortunately, this is exactly the case in which geographic addressing doesn't work so well any more, and we have no way to mandate that backbones touch down.
Name a backbone which doesn't come into the San Francisco Bay Area.
Um, all of the rest of the world's providers.
This is the area I want to try the idea out in. In terms of physical touchdowns, they are all in place. The only barrier is getting most of the backbones to willingly participate in the experiment.
And whats your business case that'll do this?
A very significant chunk of new domains and new ISPs are here, in the 415/408/510 area code regions (and 707, which is next door and could be included if we wanted...).
So build it. -scott
Scott Huddle writes:
Name a backbone which doesn't come into the San Francisco Bay Area.
Um, all of the rest of the world's providers.
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.
This is the area I want to try the idea out in. In terms of physical touchdowns, they are all in place. The only barrier is getting most of the backbones to willingly participate in the experiment.
And whats your business case that'll do this?
That the number of routes seen at core routers outside the area can drop dramatically, which is certainly beneficial for the core routers in all the backbones I know of...
A very significant chunk of new domains and new ISPs are here, in the 415/408/510 area code regions (and 707, which is next door and could be included if we wanted...).
So build it.
There is a reason I'm talking about it here. The people who will have to agree to join it at the backbone level tend to be here. If I can't convince them on the mailing list i'm wasting my time elsewhere if I start to build it. -george
And whats your business case that'll do this?
That the number of routes seen at core routers outside the area can drop dramatically, which is certainly beneficial for the core routers in all the backbones I know of...
If I participate in this, then I have to see all of the more specific routes and if I want routing to work in the rest of my backbone, then all of my routers have to see all of these routes also. Humm - where is the savings here? --asp
Your routers within the SF Bay Area have to see all the routes. Your routers outside the SF Bay Area can carry the /8. What's so hard about this? -george
participants (3)
-
asp＠uunet.uu.net -
George Herbert -
Scott Huddle