North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: multi-homing fixes

  • From: David Schwartz
  • Date: Tue Aug 28 01:13:04 2001

> 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
> then don't take my money.

> 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?

	The point you're missing is that the important issue is not whether or not
your ISP will carry and advertise your routes, since you are paying them to.
The important point is whether or not anyone else will carry your route.
There's no reason for a RIR to make a microallocation just so you can
advertise it to your ISP. If the advertisement was purely between
contracually bound parties, the block could be part of a provider's larger
block and there would be no difference. The only reason for a
microallocation is to get a party with whom you do not have a contract to
accept a route that they would not otherwise accept.

	Why else would a multihomer want a microallocation? Why not just use a
chunk of a provider's IP space? The only answers are:

	1) We don't want to be held hostage by a provider. (No good, not a
technical justification.)

	2) We want others to accept our smaller routes. (Why not do it by