BCP for multisite multihoming

[Brian E Carpenter]

On 2007-07-20 14:17, Carlos Garcia Braschi wrote:
> 2007/5/23, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>:
>> On 2007-05-23 03:28, Sascha Lenz wrote:
>> ...
>> > ...even with arguments, you most likely won't get the people who DO
>> > filter on RIR boundaries to lower them.
>> > Just not possible, they are stubborn and not open to arguments ;-)
>>
>> They are open to arguments accompanied by large amounts of money,
>> This is a business issue, not a technical or religious issue.
>> When there are financial incentives to relax the filters, it will
>> happen.
>>
>> BTW the same is true of geographic addressing - as Iljitsch
>> says, it isn't hard technically. What has been lacking for the
>> last 15 years is a financial incentive.
>>
> 
> I'm not sure if this has been proposed already, but what if we did
> geographic addressing but assigned the addresses to
> interconnect/peering points? (requiring that they be used to cover the
> region the IX is in, and that among all the peering partners manage to
> exchange locally the un-aggregated routing tables).
> 
> Those would act as LIR / RIR for all ISPs connected to them and would
> have incentive to promote the idea... as it promotes fidelity of their
> peering customers and gives them more service.

What is the financial incentive on the various actors that will
make this happen?

     Brian
> 
> It also allows the model to be applied in a more step-by-step fashion
> (there is no need to agree on that model worldwide).
> 
> Any IX listening would like the idea?
> 
>>     Brian
>>
>>
> 
>