[43109] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Gorgon's Knot. Was: Re: Verio Peering Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Fri Sep 28 22:45:59 2001
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010928222619.02d1f178@127.0.0.1>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 22:41:51 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <20010929020938.9D912C7901@cesium.clock.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 07:09 PM 9/28/2001 -0700, Sean M. Doran wrote:
>Patrick writes:
>
>| >Wouldn't it have been easier for small ISP to just aggregate?
>| >I mean, /19s got through after all!
>|
>| No, it would not have helped. Assume the prospective customer has a link
>| to UUNET and a /24, but wants a second link for [insert reason]. He now
>| goes to SmallISP.com and asks for info on getting a second T1. Then the
>| Sprint sales guy calls him and mentions that IF AND ONLY IF he buys a line
>| from Sprint, will Sprint hear his /24.
>
>Let's see. Firstly, this is a valid point, although I wonder how
>Sprint's sales person could possibly know she or he should call
>the customer in the first place. Unless Sprint is known to employ
>psychics, this seems like a bit of a stretch in producing a bete noire.
Gimme a break.
s/the Sprint sales guy calls him and/he calls a Sprint sales guy who/
Geez.....
>Secondly, /24 is not a small ISP, but wants a small ISP to back-up
>connectivity to UUNET. Valid goal. However, asking small ISP
>to ensure the world hears the hole in UUNET's CIDR block is not
>a good solution.
Why not?
>Instead:
>
> 1. this is one reason why NAT was invented in the first place,
> and (hopefully) NAT is feasible for /24 (which is not an ISP)
This would cause depletion of address space faster.
> 2. where NAT is impractical or even undesirable, Tony Bates and
> Yakov Rekhter have a solution in RFC 2260 tailor-made to this
> situation
This does not address performance issues.
> 3. the maximum 254 things in the /24 can be renumbered
> into small ISP's PA space and announced to UUWHO
> with a constraining (set of) community(ies)
>
> (NAT, incidentally, was also invented to make renumbering easier)
All this does is swap the problem around, not solve it.
> 4. "creative value-added approaches to this problem are sold for $"
Why bother, when ISP-X down the street will "just do it"?
>If the premise that /24 is not an ISP is false, then it should
>renumber anyway into PA space which is readily available and
>a generally understood cost of business for transit providers/ISPs.
Agreed.
--
TTFN,
patrick
