NAIPR Message

a 2nd potential solution

I had a thought along the lines of an ISPAC but at a higher level.  What
is large NSPs went together in groups of two or three and got routeable
space that they ISPACed.  Then they could offer a package deal to ISPs. 

Let's say for example that UUnet and Sprint go together and request a
block.  They can now offer multi-homing services to smaller ISP's as a
package deal, one line to Sprint, and one to UUnet.  This is good for
the big provider's and good for the little providers and good for the
address space.

It's also much easier for people like UUnet, Sprint, MCI etc to go
together and get routeable space than it is for ISPs.

Perhaps Priori could find another NSP it has synergy with, and get a
shared block with the other NSP.  You would then corner the market on
small ISPs because the easiest way for them to multi-home would be to
"buy the package" from Priori.  Maybe you could do it with one of the


P.S.  If you do this and it is successful, I expect my check:-)

J.D. Falk wrote:
>         It's taken me a little while to respond here, because I
>         wanted to give this a lot of thought before saying anything.
>         I apologize if anybody gets more than one of these; e-mail
>         me if you need a procmail recipe to get rid of duplicates
>         (based on the Message-ID header.)
> On Jul 16, Tony Li <tli at> wrote:
> > Network Working Group                                           T. Li
> > INTERNET DRAFT                                       Juniper Networks
> >                                                         November 1996
> >
> >
> >          Internet Service Provider Address Coalitions (ISPACs)
> >                         <draft-li-ispac-01.txt>
>  [ . . . ]
>         Overall, this is a cool idea; it sounds both technically and
>         sociopolitically feasable.  IMHO, the most important passage
>         is probably this one:
> >     [ . . . ] The
> >    address space request from an ISPAC should be regarded as if it came
> >    from any ISP with the properties of the union of the members.  No
> >    special privileges are accorded to requests from ISPACs, so normal
> >    justifications for address space would apply.
>         So, unless somebody from the IANA or one of the regional
>         registries can find a problem with this, I can't see any
>         reason why it wouldn't work RIGHT NOW for some people.
>         Of course, this isn't the best way to go for everybody.  To use
>         what seems to be everybody's favorite example these days, Priori
>         wouldn't be likely to join an ISPAC because we are building a
>         nationwide backbone (what used to be called "tier one"), but I
>         can't think of any reason why we -- or any backbone provider
>         with half a clue -- wouldn't support our customers in doing
>         something like an ISPAC, assuming they could handle announcing
>         the routes to us correctly.
>         If anybody sets one of these up, let me know how it works out.
> *********************************************************
> J.D. Falk                         voice: +1-415-482-2840
> Supervisor, Network Operations      fax: +1-415-482-2844
>      "The People You Know.  The People You Trust."
> *********************************************************