North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: request for help w/ ATT and terminology

  • From: Andy Davidson
  • Date: Sat Jan 19 11:55:58 2008



On 17 Jan 2008, at 12:45, Jeff McAdams wrote:

Tony Li wrote:
On Jan 16, 2008, at 1:37 PM, Mike Donahue wrote:
Anyway, it's all getting (for us) pretty complicated. We're a fairly small firm and just want an Ethernet handoff with our IP block on it. Sprint didn't blink at the request, but AT&T... We're getting a good rate from AT&T for the IP services because it's at their colo. Switching back to Sprint would definitely be more costly.
Please renumber into an AT&T prefix.
Yeah, because that's what's best for everyone else in the world *except* him. I understand the desire to keep from exploding the routing tables, but
come on. You big ISP folks need to remember that you exist to provide service to customers.

Jeff,


Respectfully, do you see anyone from the big ISPs posting to NANOG complaining about the impact of the routing table size in their DFZ ? The big ISPs (e.g. many of them at the top of the 'Aggregation Summary' of the CIDR report) can probably afford the routing table to be twice the size (perhaps, if they're really big, their igp is already carrying twice as many routes ... ?)

It's the multihomed enterprises, hosting companies, and smaller regional isps who today take advantage of having the full routing table to use, but soon might not be able to afford to, when companies like the OP don't renumber into their new ISP's space when they decide to change provider.

There's some debate in RIPE land right now that discusses, "what actually is the automatic, free, right to PI" ? Every other network in the world pays the cost when someone single homes but wants their / 24 prefix on everyone else's router. If one had to pay a registry for PI, then small networks would have to think about the negative externalities of their decision to deploy using PI.


Best wishes, Andy