[12275] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: too many routes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Mercer)
Thu Sep 11 18:18:38 1997
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 17:18:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Mercer <dmercer@world.std.com>
Reply-To: david@infinetways.net
To: "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>
Cc: "Sean M. Doran" <smd@clock.org>, Sanjay Dani <sanjay@professionals.com>,
nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <19970911140231.61780@scfn.thpl.lib.fl.us>
On Thu, 11 Sep 1997, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 10, 1997 at 09:11:55PM -0400, Sean M. Doran wrote:
> > Sanjay Dani <sanjay@professionals.com> writes:
> > > There are backbone providers and there are providers of specialized
> > > ISP or hosting or security etc. services that need independent* IP
> > > address space and do not have to waste resources on building a private
> > > "backbone".
> Perhaps I misunderstood Sanjay, Sean, but I believe his concern was
> that the addresses _not be the property of an upstream (ie: backbone)
> provider_ to provide flexibility of connection choice.
Thats the position I find myself in, hosting/specialized ISP, who needs a
large enough independent block to be fully routable and multi-homed....
but don't have a /19 or mores worth of hosts yet... Seems the standard
answer for what to do in this situation is "tell the internic (now arin?)
what you have to then, even if its partially lies, to get the block
and AS number".....
> This isn't a network numbering problem, it's a routing problem.
Precisely, its only a numbering problem in the sense of how that affects
routing/routablility....at least in my case...
-David Mercer
infiNETways, Inc.
Tucson, AZ
