nanog mailing list archives
Re: The Big Squeeze
From: Craig Nordin <cnordin () vni net>
Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 23:58:32 -0500 (EST)
Shouldn't the big boys ... be forced to come up with a fairer solution?
by who?
An even playing field where those who can only get a few class C addresses are not excluded from multiple peering points. I think that this is fairer to *everyone*. So far, we have two unilateral decisions by those powerful enough to make it stick. InterNIC protects address space, and Sprint (and others) protect router memory. 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? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: The Big Squeeze, (continued)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Nathan Stratton (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Jim Jagielski (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Nathan Stratton (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Pete Kruckenberg (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Jim Jagielski (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Avi Freedman (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Nathan Stratton (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Michael Shields (Mar 02)
- 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 Kim Hubbard (Mar 01)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Nathan Stratton (Mar 02)
- Re: The Big Squeeze Randy Bush (Mar 02)