Re: Internet core scale and market-based address allocation

[bmanning () karoshi com]

> > > > Route advertisements do not fit any existing model, since an advertisement
> > > > affects all members of the system equally, no matter how far away they are
> > > > from the advertisement.
> > >
> > >   Er. Not at all.
> > >   Please review routing 101.  
> > >   Pop quiz.  define prefix filtering and proxy aggregation
> > >
> > > --bill
> >
> > Reread my email dated 4/17/2003 with subject of "selective auto-aggregation"
> > I think you'll find I've already given some thought on proxy aggregation
> > as better than prefix-filtering for maintaining connectivity while limitting
> > the effects of someone else's deaggregation.
>
> Sprint did that in 1994-95. Or at least threatened to do it when one ISP
> that now had been bought by a promsing local ISP decided not to aggregate.
> The Sprint's move was enough to force that ISP to aggregate.
>
> Alex

The statement; "an advertisement affects all members of the system equally"
is false.  As you point out, sprint (at the time) was able to announce 
192.0.0.0/3, which clearly changed how they saw more specific annoucements.

I guess my point is, peering is a bilateral agreement between two parties
to exchange packets.  part of that agreement is or should include provisions
for determining what prefixes are sourced by each party and what are
the expectations for re-announcing those prefixes to other parties. 

Those agreements/negotiations are -BILATERAL- and only affect the consenting
parties.  Anything else is either sloppiness or laziness. 

--bill