[address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Fri Apr 21 05:23:49 CEST 2006
On Thu, 20 Apr 2006 18:28:41 +0300, you wrote: > Larger end-sites already have 10-20k+ annual budget (most have much, > much larger than that): caused by CAPEX by getting at least two > routers, OPEX by paying to multiple ISPs for fibers, transit, etc. and > salaries of network engineering staff. On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 11:44:42PM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote: > Remember, it's easy and cheap to have a multihoming setup with two DSL > lines... Could you finally make up your mind? First, your argument was that multihoming is expensive anyway, so shelling out another couple thousand of EUR/USD/whatever doesn't make a difference - just to keep the clueless bottom-feeders out. Now you say it's totally cheap to multihome. You're contradicting yourself. If you want to contain /senseless/ DFZ pollution, start with the ISPs. Just take a look at CIDR report. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: [GLOBAL-V6] Re: [ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it less destructive
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]