Re: BGP announcements and small providers

From: Chris Phillips (no email)
Date: Tue Feb 25 1997 - 20:17:39 EST


At 02:51 PM 2/25/97 -0500, you wrote:
>At 10:50 AM 2/25/97 -0500, Paul Ferguson wrote:
>>Well, without naming names, the prefix-length based filtering is
>>done on non-customer routes. A byproduct of this is it grudgingly
>>encourages aggregation.
>
>Well, yes, but now that multiple providers are doing this the fact that
>they are non-customer filters affects anyone who is not a customer of BOTH
>providers, thus further encouraging people to aggregate. I would not mind
>seeing these filters become more prevalent, making it unreasonable for
>people to become customers of everyone who filters to get around the
>filters. Renumbering is NOT that hard folks, and it DOES help.
>

We service hundreds of dedicated customers and some customers don't mind
renumbering (if they are small) but most of our larger customers who have
more than 100-200 hosts on their network have expressed GREAT opposition to
any such notion of renumbering. Its not that they don't want to do it
because they are lazy, on the contrary, many companies cannot the afford the
downtime or cost asociated with renumbering their LAN/WAN. I agree that
renumbering is an important aspect of address grooming for better agregation
but there are some real $$$ costs to some end-user networks to do so. Also,
how many times can you ask a customer to renumber before they bail and go
elsewhere?

--
Christopher K. Phillips
Chief Technical Officer
Rocky Mountain Internet, Inc
 303.672.0799
http://www.rmi.net
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -







Hosted Email Solutions

Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD