North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: Routing wars pending?
Salutations. ] >(Tim Bass) ] > Technically, the aggregation advocates were correct. Socially and ] > politically, aggregation on a global cooperative scale has problems. ] >(Noel) ] >Which is why we need *two* namespaces: one for the routing to do what ] >mathematics forces it to, and one for the humans to be able to dork with. ] (Mike) ] This idea has been around *long* enough. When do we separate the name ] spaces? How about along with the IPng transition? I ask the following question naievely because I don't know how to ask it maturely. What are the correlations and contrasts between our current backbone routing problems (wrt space and # of routes) and the FCC decision several years ago to make 1-800 numbers portable. Is there any correlation? I realize (think) that the FCC ruling was localized to the US, perhaps not..... I ask because I see the a potential scenario when we are forced to play hardball wrt non portability of new CIDR routes. Imagine this... Big corporation leaves us having been allocated /21 of address space. We tell them to get new IP numbers from their provider and backbone smart people make it known they won't propogate routes (you wouldn't, right Sean?). They say get stuffed, and get a congress person to propose a bill that all IP numbers are portable. This bill passes. It could happen. Any thoughts? -alan