Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role

[Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco com>]

At 04:26 PM 4/2/96 -0800, Michael Dillon wrote:

> On Tue, 2 Apr 1996, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>
> > If the providers were to relax the requirements to renumber when
> > moving to another provider or when dual homing, the problem of the 
> > TWD would not be growing at its current rate.
>
> Hmmm.... ISP has T1 to SPRINT, wants to switch to MCI, SPRINT says, OK
> you have a choice, either renumber or pay us to route your traffic to MCI 
> via a private exchange point so we don't have to knock holes in our 
> aggregate. That way you can use SPRINT's addresses and MCI's T1, but for 
> a fee.


And the global routing table grows.

- paul