From: Andy Davidson (no email)
Date: Sat Jan 19 2008 - 11:48:44 EST
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
|
|
|