North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Comments

  • From: bmanning
  • Date: Sat Sep 10 15:17:05 1994
  • Posted-date: Sat, 10 Sep 1994 12:16:38 -0700 (PDT)

> "Stop trying to help me.  It's not broken, and doesn't need to be
> fixed."
> 
> If there is some clear gain in somehow combining these two things,
> please let me know.  I don't think that an RA qualifies as a "gain"
> since we have an existance proof that we can get along without one of
> those already.  A more interesting prospect to consider is hooking
> together MAE-East and, say, the FIX.  That *might* actually help.
> 

Ah comeon Louie, you really, REALLY want this vanilla ice-cream cone that
I have for you!

Actually, I think the RA (in the context of coordinated routing registries 
and route servers) does provide a gain.  Virtually all the RIPE papers (ripe81
and derivitives) indicate that a common route registry will become a critical
component in the internet.  (RIPE has had a functioning RS @ mae-east for
a number of years now)  The use of such services has several advantages,
including reducing the number of peers that you MUST peer with. None of this
precludes your ability to set up as many bilateral arraingments as you as an
ISP, feel you need.  

I would expect that ISPs would begin to realize that they function as a route 
registration service today, even if they don't run a database behind it. When
ISPs have a conflict, they can negotiate the answer between them or they can 
appeal to a neutral, third party.  Kind of like giveing your customers a
choice... "I have your best interests at heart" or "Here, go ask a neutral
party and see if I'm right".  


I guess that the "existance proof" argument can also be used for why we don't
need CIDR or IPv6.  We have things that work now, why do something new?

-- 
--bill
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -