Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations

[Dave Siegel <dsiegel () rtd com>]

> > There is at least one very simple response.  Set up some deviant CIX, say
> > IX195-8, let everyone with a shortish 195/8 prefix connect to it either
> > directly through their own provider, or indirectly through some tunnel, and
> > have IX195-8 announce reachability of 195/8.  That is, in short, altern
> > topology to meet addresses when the converse is too hard.  KRE detailed
> > that for the general case, but it would be even simpler in the case of
> > RIPE, since all the allocated network numbers are in the same geographical
> > area.
>
> I still think it would be worthwhile doing a top-down experiment with
> this sort of address structure around an easily aggregated geographical
> area, say the San Francisco Bay Area in northern California.  I brought the
> idea up about 6 months ago and it floundered due to disinterest, but it
> still seems to be viable.

However, as Andrew w/UUnet pointed out some time ago, you end up providing
transit in this way.

If the goal is to only announce 195/8, any provider numbered in that block
that is dual-homed with this "deviant CIX" and some other provider suddenly
starts providing transit for the entire "deviant CIX".

I highly doubt that this is desirable.

Dave

-- 
Dave Siegel                  President, RTD Systems & Networking, Inc.
(520)623-9663                Network Engineer -- Regional/National NSPs (Cisco)
dsiegel () rtd com                   User Tracking & Acctg -- "Written by an ISP, 
http://www.rtd.com/~dsiegel/                                    for an ISP."