Re: [lir-wg] Discussion about RIPE-261

[Nils Ketelsen <]

On Thu, May 29, 2003 at 08:06:32AM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:

> > The *benefit* of "/48 multihoming" is that you can filter those routes
> > if you don't want to see them - then your routers will send packets
> > down the /32 road, and eventually hit a router that knows about the /48
> > (which is why I consider this approach superior to "everybody gets a
> > independent prefix", which I can't properly aggregate).  Which brings
> > us back to "why I want ONE regional block per RIR" - that's why.
> Yup.

Gert pointed me to this list and I lurked for a while now. But now I want to
take my chance and say something about this: I'm on the customers side (not
being a LIR, but rather seing it from the other perspective).

We currently have our internetaccess at one provider and are quite happy
with this most of the time. The only problem is the disaterous commercial
situation of some providers. This forced us to change providers a few times
now and we are just currently thinking of implementing multihoming. Not
because its a better technical solution (this is a nice sideeffect, but not
the main reason), but rather to be indepent from the next bankrupt.

This is exactly what mutihoming with PA Address Space will not solve. Though
I see the technical advantages Gert pointed out (especially bein reachable
from an AS filtering small netblocks, this does not provide any solution to
the commercial challenges providers are currently facing.

So, what we really want is PI addresses. And with the current pratices they
just do not aggregate which also is a bad thing. This is why I think the
geographical approach already mentioned on the list (one netblock per
country, different sizes depending on population) currently is the approach
which fits that need best, I believe.

Just my 0.02EUR,
    Nils