Re: Request for Comments on a topological address block for N. Calif.

[asp () uunet uu net (Andrew Partan)]

> I propose that a large block (say, /8 to /10) be allocated to an
> independent authority which will then reallocate growable blocks to
> small to mid level ISPs in the northern california region who are
> connecting via providers attached to MAE-W, CIX, or PacBell's NAP and
> topologically "at" those connect points.  These addresses can then be
> filtered out of announcements to routers anywhere else in the world and
> replaced with a /8 aggregate announcement; only routers within the
> topology zone would require full information on the connected
> entities.  These addresses will be relatively easy to dual-home within
> the area, yet will have minimal impact on the global routing
> infrastructure.

I don't think that this will work for a business viewpoint - someone
will end up giving at least some of these ISPs free transit.

See the attached message that I sent to big-internet earlier this
month.  My comments apply to metro-based addressing or
interconnect-based addressing or similar schemes.
        --asp () uunet uu net (Andrew Partan)

> From: asp () uunet uu net (Andrew Partan)
> Subject: Geographinc addressing
> To: big-internet () munnari OZ AU
> Date: Mon, 4 Sep 1995 22:33:41 -0400 (EDT)
>
> People have talked about geographic addressing.
>
> Lets look at this in a bit more detail.
>
> Lets assume that everyone on the Boston area has a geographic address
> and that AlterNet and some other ISP (SmallGuy) have some customers in
> this area, and that AlterNet and SmallGuy peer at some Boston area
> exchange point.
>
> Now AlterNet has to have explicate routes to all sites in the Boston
> area - our own Boston customers plus all Boston customers of all other
> Boston ISPs.  Humm, I don't see any aggregation here.  But to
> continue.
>
> Now the idea is that outside of the Boston area, all ISPs will
> aggregate all Boston area routes (for all of their own customers and
> all customers of all other Boston ISPs) into one large Boston route.
>
> Now if I peer with some other ISP in some other area (say someone in
> San Francisco), then I am supposed to send them just one route for the
> Boston area.
>
> I have now suddenly offered transit for SmallGuy between San Francisco
> and Boston.
>
> If SmallGuy is not paying me for transit, then I am not going to do
> this.
>
> The only way of not doing this is to not advertise the single Boston
> route, but rather to advertise all of my Boston area customers
> individually - suddenly no more aggregation.
>
> So either there is free transit or no aggregation.
>
> Geographic addressing is not going to fly.
>       --asp () uunet uu net (Andrew Partan)