North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

RE: multi-homing fixes

  • From: Roeland Meyer
  • Date: Tue Aug 28 00:57:35 2001

|> From: David Schwartz [mailto:[email protected]]
|> Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 8:52 PM
|> Patrick Greenwell wrote:
|> > Please explain why the "basement dual-homer" should not 
|> have the same
|> > right to diversity as the "major services."
|> >
|> > And please, be specific.
|> 	The quesetion is bogus, there is no such thing as a 
|> right to have a route
|> in my router without paying me for it. 

If I am paying for those routes then I have a contractual right. If you
don't want my redundant feed, and the route advertisements that go with it,
then don't take my money.

No one is advocating multi-homing without payment. Where did you read that?

|> If I choose to extend 
|> that privilege
|> to people who meet certain minimum requirements because I believe the
|> benefits will outweight the costs, then that's *my* right. 

Please detail the exact costs of a, BGP inserted, routing table entry. Is
it, maybe, 50 cents? Now, how much are you getting for a DS1 link? What does
that cost, exactly, considering that an outfit capable of setting up
multi-homing are probably the folks that your techs never hear from, but
once a year? That appears to be a margin that is far above keystone. How
greedy do you want to be?

|> All others can
|> pay me to do it if they want me to. Your rights end at my network.

BTW, randy's position is rather strange, coming from someone that used to
support the FidoNet community, by being the FTSC chair.