[address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Michel Py
michel at arneill-py.sacramento.ca.us
Sat Oct 1 20:36:25 CEST 2011
>> Michel Py wrote: >> I hate to sound brutal, but why should I believe that you >> will find the Holy Grail that everyone else has been searching >> for over the last 15 years? I heard it all, I wrote part of it. >> There is NO solution to make renumbering easy and there is NO >> solution nearly as good as PI for multihoming. > Bill Manning wrote: > DFZ slots are for those who pay for them... This is not the way I see it. Paying for DFZ slots is embedded in "cost of doing business" for large / T1 ISPs, and in the recurring charges they charge to smaller ISPs or customers. If there was a monetary value, it would be relatively easy to collect a fee based on the number of prefixes announced upstream. I do not see that happening. It's all about money. The collective cost of announcing a prefix in the DFZ is less than the collective cost of having a complex and impossible to troubleshoot multihoming mechanism based on PA. As long as a DFZ slot does not cost $100 or $1000 a month, organizations will not go for a more complex mechanism. We are several orders of magnitude below the cost threshold. As of ID/LOC schemes, there is this myth that the table is small but in practice large environments will have to maintain a very large ID/LOC map which brings us back to the size of the DFZ again. Michel.
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Proposal 2011-02 moving to Last Call
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]