[35807] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Statements against new.net?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adam Rothschild)
Fri Mar 16 03:50:37 2001
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 02:43:43 -0500
From: Adam Rothschild <asr@latency.net>
To: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010316024342.A31661@og.latency.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039CDA@condor.mhsc.com>; from rmeyer@mhsc.com on Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 07:20:55PM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 07:20:55PM -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> ISP specific
...works reasonably well if you want to multihome w/ BGP, but cannot
honestly justify a provider-independent IP allocation as per registry
guidelines, assuming some level of common sense is exercised when
planning things.
> CIDR swamps are not cool.
Sorry I'm not an authority on what's cool in your book, but why not?
> It must be portable and routable. See, I just created a market
> differentiator.
So, encourage the ARIN to offer micro-allocations today, and upstreams
to listen to /24 (or whatever) and shorter out of this space, if and
when it does become available. With the backing of MHSC, I'd imagine
such a task should be effortless.
> BTW, i've been getting comments that some folks are biasing
> evaluations of some clients, based on the ip addrs of the client's
> hosts.
Oh my. I thought all one needed to be stylin' was a low AS number.
Do tell, which IP blocks are prestigious, and which are not?
-adam
