RE: more specific routes in today reality
- Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:07:20 -0400
>
> Well, this can ofcourse then be taken to the extreme. Let's
> assume that I
> am cost concious resdient with a sattelite down-link (yupp,
> they exist),
> and a DSL line and a Cable link. Should I not be allowed the same easy
> choice of up-link as the corporate world?
>
> Let's then assume that I have my home on VoIP only so NAT is
> out. Do I get
> my own AS-number and PA space then?
>
You are using three different IP addresses that are dynamically (OK. If you
insist statically) assigned to three different links. But how can I reach
your web server ?
This is different from the corporate world to have the same IP coming in
from different links.
> I think we all agree that the current routing model is broken and no
> longer does what we would expect it to do. However, I think
> Randy is right
> in that this will take at least 5 years to redo though. Just look at
> addressing / CIDR /IPv6. That has taken what, 8 years? At
> least, and we
> are not really near any deployment. A CIDR like solution of this is
> simple. Filter.
>
Maybe you are willing to black-hole some /24 block like eBay ?
> > In this situation the most popular solution for local
> customer, who needs
> > reliable and cheap IP uplink and high speed access to
> regional Internet
> > resources, is to build two channels to local ISPs (not so
> reliable, but much
> > more cheaper than even one external uplink) and to local IX.
In this SOHO situation you don't need a seperate entry in the
global routing table. Also the point is two links (phone line won't
die the same time as the satellite, will they ?)
>
> IXes are a bad example as just beeing present won't do. You
> need to get
> peers as well. And if you are a company my guess is that most
> providers
> rather sell you bandwidth than peer.
This is going backward to ask company to have full mesh among all the ISPs ?
Ping Lu
Cable & Wireless USA
Network Tools and Analysis Group
W: +1-703-292-2359
E: plu@localhost
