[32770] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ISP operational question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Shawn McMahon)
Tue Dec 12 14:04:20 2000
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2000 14:02:12 -0500
From: Shawn McMahon <smcmahon@eiv.com>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20001212140212.C31737@eiv.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="3siQDZowHQqNOShm"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0012120854180.73710-100000@cx175057-a.ocnsd1.sdca.home.com>; from bri@sonicboom.org on Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:59:11AM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--3siQDZowHQqNOShm
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Dec 12, 2000 at 08:59:11AM -0800, Brian W. wrote:
>=20
> > Now here is the question. What choices does the regional ISP have when=
=20
> > implementing routing and IP addressing? I assume the regional ISP will =
not=20
> > implement BGP, since there will only be one maybe two upstream connecti=
ons=20
> > to a single NSP - initially.
> You will have a marketing problem with this. Customers would like to see
> you connected to more than 1 nsp. Also, you sooner or later will get a
> customer that wants to multihome to you and another company. So, you'll
> really need to think about getting an as and running bgp I believe.=20
You're assuming a lot about his region.
Plug any rural Oklahoma county in there, and his model is what's done.
--3siQDZowHQqNOShm
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE6NnY0Ecl9bQ0RMt0RAmxGAJ9u5ziMB4w2uh9Vihfro5b3xjcQbgCaAgar
ooJXzjv9HoDMx0o5uc5+KPI=
=jfP4
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--3siQDZowHQqNOShm--
