a 2nd potential solution
J.D. Falk
jdfalk at priori.net
Fri Jul 18 12:26:57 EDT 1997
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 juniper.net> 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
PRIORI NETWORKS, INC. http://www.priori.net
"The People You Know. The People You Trust."
*********************************************************
More information about the Naipr
mailing list