North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
CM> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:37:44 -0500 CM> From: Chip Mefford CM> ED> Of course not. Let SBC and Cox obtain a _joint_ ASN and _joint_ CM> ED> address space. Each provider announces the aggregate co-op space CM> ED> via the joint ASN as a downstream. CM> CM> This makes a lot of sense. BTW, Paul, FixedOrbit reports 701 as having ~1500 peers and downstreams. As interconnected as even they are, that's still a far cry from the full-mesh O(N^2) situation you seemed to suggest. CM> However, as one of those smaller players, who may be multihomed CM> using SBC and Cox, as your example says, I can fairly say CM> that I don't like renumbering very much, and sometimes one CM> finds there is a good business case to be made to switch providers, CM> In short, having an ASN is good for me, if not for the community CM> at large, so how to balance that? Changing ASNs is easy for small, one-router installations. Renumbering would still be necessary, but that's no different than the status quo. i.e., my proposal does not make this worse. That said, let's think if we can improve in that area. CM> Right now, gettin ONE upstream to issue a private asn can be CM> like an amatuer dental extraction, imagine 2 that don't like each other, CM> or more often are totally ambivalent with regards to the others CM> concerns/cares/policies/proceedures, et al. One says xxx00, and CM> the other xxx01, how am I supposed to sort this out? RIR-issued public ASNs. I probably should have merged the "truly radical" thread with this one. CM> ED> We're dealing with _one_ routing policy: hand it to Cox, or hand it CM> ED> to SBC. Why explode it into two million "different" policies? CM> CM> Are we? Or are we dealing with _one_ routing policy: handing CM> it to Cox AND handing it to SBC, who mediates? Right now, it CM> appears as if it would me, the end-user. I'm just not equipped for that. Exactly. It's _one_ routing policy. Not equipped? A little SOHO router could easily accept default and advertise a prefix or two via BGP. Once upon a time a 2500 held a full table; consumer-grade routers of today boast better CPU and RAM. Okay, so consumers must flash new firmware or forklift their $100 router. Oh well. CM> I just don't know how it would play out in practice between CM> two providers, who as we have seen over recent short history CM> don't necessarily work and play well together. In which case it's time for consumers to vote with their wallets. Or, if that's not possible, perhaps the FCC and SEC (in the USA) need to evaluate certain providers. Hence the "radical" aspect of the suggestion. ;-) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: [email protected] -*- [email protected] -*- [email protected] Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.