North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Routing wars pending?

  • From: Alan Hannan
  • Date: Wed Nov 15 18:40:08 1995


] >(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?