Re: [lir-wg] Discussion about RIPE-261
- Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 15:56:36 +0100
- Organization: PT Comunicacoes - Marconi
On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 04:35:09PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2003 at 03:29:10PM +0100, Carlos Morgado wrote:
> > Ah. Yes, do tell 500000 customer and 4 diferent billing/provisioning system
> > type ISPs to renumber if they change upstream provider. That will make you
> > popular :)
>
> If you have 500000 customers, there's no discussion that you can get
> your own address block (and keep it).
>
Granted, that example was a bit extreme :) However, most ISPs/networks
tend to fiercely opose renumbering.
> The interesting problem is how to make end user (!) multihoming work
> without putting the burden on everybody *else*. I am NOT interested in
> seeing 20.000 small multihomed end customers in my routing tables, because
> in the end everything goes over one of two possible links anyway.
>
That's cause you only have 2 links. Some people have 20. With 3 diferent
routing policies. And that's not even counting costumer links.
Geting the Americas, Africa, Europe and Asia routes blows dead bears in
that situation.
> > Now really, I rather have IPv6 now, evaluate the real practical problems and fix
> > them than spending years not having IPv6 cause the fix to a would-be problem
> > introduces unworkable problems itself.
>
> So go and get an allocation :-)
>
Aparently I'm not big enough. My costumers are though.
I'm supposed to get a /48 from one my 5 or 6 upstream providers and
then announce it to a number of IXs.
It's got to be a brave new Internet when in the name of aggregation
upstream providers can't get address space.
(but that's another flamewar ;))
--
Carlos Morgado chbm@localhost - Internet Engineering - Phone +351 214146594
GPG key: 0x75E451E2 FP: B98B 222B F276 18C0 266B 599D 93A1 A3FB 75E4 51E2
The views expressed above do not bind my employer.
