Re: ISPACs

Tony Li <tli@jnx.com> Fri, 06 December 1996 09:00 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa07963; 6 Dec 96 4:00 EST
Received: from nico.aarnet.edu.au by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa06800; 6 Dec 96 4:00 EST
Received: from red.jnx.com (red.jnx.com [208.197.169.254]) by nico.aarnet.edu.au (8.6.10/8.6.10) with SMTP id TAA09037 for <cidrd@iepg.org>; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 19:01:17 +1100
Received: from chimp.jnx.com (chimp.jnx.com [208.197.169.246]) by red.jnx.com (8.8.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id AAA06204; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:01:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from tli@localhost) by chimp.jnx.com (8.7.6/8.7.3) id AAA22042; Fri, 6 Dec 1996 00:00:52 -0800 (PST)
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 1996 00:00:52 -0800
Message-Id: <199612060800.AAA22042@chimp.jnx.com>
From: Tony Li <tli@jnx.com>
To: justin@erols.com
CC: cidrd@iepg.org
In-reply-to: <3.0b36.32.19961205214806.013c0d7c@justin.erols.com>
Subject: Re: ISPACs

Justin,

   Right, but even if I maintain my own upstream connection I am at the mercy
   of anyone else's upstream connection who is announcing thwe agregate block
   which contain my IP's.

So, if that's a concern, the ISPAC administration can simply dictate that
the prefix only be announced by the common interconnect boxes.

   Right, the same as I can today with an upstream provider.  Basically what
   it seems that you are proposing is to some extent replacing dependance on
   an upstream provider with the ISPAC for IP address continuity.  

Not replacing: adding another option.  None of this precludes folks having
an upstream provider instead of, or as well as ISPAC connectivity.

   Yes, you can, and such an action is definately malicious, and likely
   illegal (like go to jail illegal).  It is a lot easier for someone to do
   such a thing and have it look like an accident if they are advertising your
   blocks /with your consent/.  Am I not making the difference clear, or am I
   overestimating the risk I believe I would be at if I undertook such a
   course of action.

What's not clear is simple: you only have to give your consent to advertise
the shared prefix to the ISPAC administration.  This need not imply that
any other ISPAC member advertise the prefix.  Given that the ISPAC
administration is not a competitor, why is there sensitivity?  Yes, you
don't have the control that you would over a direct employee, but it would
seem that this would alleviate fears of feigned incompetence.

   A common
   interconnect model does improve things, but that takes us back to a
   provider based model where the people running the interconnect are a
   provider, which leaves us at the current model, no different.

I don't follow your leap here to the people running the interconnect being
a separate provider.  They're providing a room and bandwidth and mebbe
routing services under contract to the ISPAC (as a group).  Does that make
them a competitor?  Is MFS a competitor because of MAE-East?

Tony