[lir-wg] Discussion about RIPE-261
Carlos Morgado chbm at cprm.net
Mon May 26 16:56:36 CEST 2003
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 at cprm.net> - 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.
[ lir-wg Archives ]