North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: BGP announcements and small providers
This is not a practical expectation. If done on a wide-scale basis, the whole concept of route aggregation is for naught. I would suggest tyhat you read: RFC2008, "Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies for Internet Routing", http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc2008.txt - paul At 12:08 PM 2/26/97 +0000, Sean Rolinson wrote: >Agreed. > >And it is my opinion that upstream providers should allow (or be >required) portability of assigned IP addresses. Naturally, there are >some logistics that need to be dealt with, but if someone is BGP >peering, it pretty much boils down to an announcement change, >correct? > >We, as a provider, would not mind paying some nominal fee (cheap!) >to our upstream provider for continued use of IP addresses after we >have terminated our service. We have even considered getting the >smallest possible connection to that particular provider just to be >able to continually use their IP addresses. This does not seem like >a very effective alternative for us or our upstream provider. > >I am wondering what impact, if any, would requiring portability of >IP addresses under certain criteria (BGP peering, etc) have on the >Internet? > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|