nanog mailing list archives
Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco com>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 16:09:49 -0500
At 03:23 PM 2/15/96 -0500, Alan B. Clegg wrote:
How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP? "Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was not my argument. My argument is that small ISPs are *NOT* going to cooperate to get larger blocks. They use any tactic to make themselves out to be 'larger fish' in that network bowl. Ever seen a nasty catfight between small local ISPs? I have. Not pretty. Cooperation? Not likely.
This is exactly the type of mentality that the address ownership draft addresses, and without the word 'mandatory' appearing anywhere in the text. This attitude of non-cooperation is shameful. - paul
Current thread:
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Paul Ferguson (Feb 15)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Alan B. Clegg (Feb 15)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... @NANOG-LIST (Feb 15)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Paul Ferguson (Feb 15)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... @NANOG-LIST (Feb 15)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Paul Ferguson (Feb 16)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... @NANOG-LIST (Feb 16)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Stan Barber (Feb 17)