nanog mailing list archives
Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations
From: huitema () pax inria fr (Christian Huitema)
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 1996 18:48:26 +0100
At 2:41 PM 30/1/96, Andrew Partan wrote:
The proper solution is for all these companies to form a consortium. The consortium would run the NAP and contract with multiple NSP's for service. In that case, the NSP's are not providing transit to non-customers because the consortium is the customer and every ISP who joins the consortium gets multihoming reliability outside the region.Ah - we may have something that works - we have someone (the consortium) being paid (by these companies) to provide (or further purchase) transit.
My initial message may have been terse, but I was certainly not expecting the "deviant CIX" or "specialized NAP" or "Agregating CIDR Internet Detour" (ACID, (tm)) to provide world wide reachability for free. In fact, it is providing a service at a cost. The service is to provide reachability to smallish 192/27 single home or multihomed networks. It does so by aggregating several such networks into a larger, CIDR routable, 192/8 (or /10, or /15). The cost is indeed that the transit traffic goes through the ACID, consume bandwidth and other resources, and that these resources have to be payed for. In short, networks owners pay for not having to renumber; how much they are ready to pay depends on how expensive their renumbering will be. Paying can be done in many way, from the "consortium" which you suggest to some fees to a service company that operates the ACID. In fact, the major roadblock here is the intrisic monopoly -- at first sight, there can only be one ACID for a given aggregate. This may trigger all sorts of regulatory questions. Sharing of resource between consortium members or service customers may be done either the usual way (i.e. FIFO and random luck) or in a more organized way, e.g. using class based queuing. Christian Huitema
Current thread:
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations, (continued)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Dave Siegel (Jan 30)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations marthag (Jan 30)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Curtis Villamizar (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Scott Huddle (Jan 30)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Geoff Huston (Jan 30)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jan 30)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Brett D. Watson (Jan 30)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Vadim Antonov (Jan 30)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Robert A. Rosenberg (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Robert A. Rosenberg (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Christian Huitema (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Yakov Rekhter (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations George Herbert (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Yakov Rekhter (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Noel Chiappa (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Jon Zeeff (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Noel Chiappa (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Noel Chiappa (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Sean Doran (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations George Herbert (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations Dennis Ferguson (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations George Herbert (Jan 31)
- Re: Policy Statement on Address Space Allocations George Herbert (Jan 31)