Re: *LA questions [was Re: initial issues]

[Harald Alvestrand <Harald@Alvestrand.no>]

At 10:36 16/02/2001 -0600, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>2. Are you asserting that concept of a hierarchy of providers is dead?
>In other words do you think that the idea that lay behind the TLA/NLA
>split - that local providers hang off less local providers - is totally
>broken, or is it merely the definition of fixed boundaries in the
>TLA..NLA portion of the address that is viewed as a problem? Note, I'm
>not hung up at all on the terminology of "top level" and "next level".
>I'm just trying to understand what you think will happen in the
>topology.

I think one thing we have learned is that small fish get to be bigger fish, 
and bigger fish get to be (relatively) smaller fish. ISPs move around in 
the foodchain, and faster than they (presently) want to renumber.

especially faster than they want to tell their customers to renumber, with 
present technology.

at the moment, microscopic ISPs get address space from humungously big ISPs.
easier renumbering may reduce the size difference required.
--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, alvestrand@cisco.com
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: Harald@Alvestrand.no