nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Big Squeeze
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco com>
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 1997 10:00:26 -0500
At 11:58 PM 3/1/97 -0500, Craig Nordin wrote:
Isn't there a way, if the InterNIC and the larger backbone operators cooperated, that organizations having smaller armounts of address space would not be filtered out? Or is it technically impossible?
This isn't so much an issue of warm-fuzzy technical fairness, more than it is one of provider (interior) network stability, and when it comes to the latter, the providers who are filtering on prefix length are doing so because they feel that it is in their best interest. I would suggest that the largest percentage of flapping prefixes in the global routing system belong to prefixes longer than /19. This is not to say that they could be economical incentivized to accept routes for arbitrarily long prefixes. US$.02, - paul - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: The Big Squeeze, (continued)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Scott Bradner (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Philip J. Nesser II (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Craig Nordin (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Philip J. Nesser II (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Michael Dillon (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Michael Dillon (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Scott Bradner (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Sean Donelan (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Kim Hubbard (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Nathan Stratton (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul A Vixie (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul Ferguson (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Randy Bush (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul Ferguson (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul Ferguson (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Randy Bush (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul Ferguson (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Randy Bush (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Paul Ferguson (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Jim Jagielski (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Michael Dillon (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Nathan Stratton (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Jim Jagielski (Mar 02)