On Monday 08 May 2006 07:28, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Gert Doering:
Which is touching the core of the problem:
"can we agree upon who should be allowed to put a route into my routers"?
Ideally, that would be someone who pays for this kind of service. The fewer prefixes there are, the more feasible this approach will be. 8-)
To be routed one needs at least one relationship with an ISP (in whatever form). My organization has PI (and PA) space. The PI space used to be routed via DRA (UK) via a milnet to the US, later via NL-Net, later via UU-net and now via Surfnet. In all occasions we pay for the service to be routed. Now how our provider(s) arrange with their peers to get our blocks routed is their business but I assume there is some form of agreement that takes care of it. So it is not like PI users just connect to the net for free. The fee be able to add routes is in what one pays to the connectivity provider. The use of PI space also implies that the PI holder can't just order a DSL from somewhere and get it routed. To get PI routed one needs a more serious contract (like we have) but that's ok because PI is part of a business continuity plan and one looks at the business case. The connectivity provider (generally an ISP) has to make sure all other parties are happy. That's the role of an ISP. In my view, regardless if one pays for the right to use a PI block, the fact that a PI holder has one does not load it into the routing table. Being connected does. Being connected is not free and costs money and is provided by ISP's or other organizations that connect somehow to the core of the Internet. [..] -- Marc van Selm NATO C3 Agency CIS Division E-mail: marc.van.selm@nc3a.nato.int (PGP capable)