[7840] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP announcements and small providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Ferguson)
Wed Feb 26 13:40:01 1997
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 1997 13:05:23 -0500
To: snowdog@charm.net
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
This is not a practical expectation. If done on a wide-scale basis,
the whole concept of route aggregation is for naught. I would
suggest tyhat you read:
RFC2008, "Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies
for Internet Routing", http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc2008.txt
- paul
At 12:08 PM 2/26/97 +0000, Sean Rolinson wrote:
>Agreed.
>
>And it is my opinion that upstream providers should allow (or be
>required) portability of assigned IP addresses. Naturally, there are
>some logistics that need to be dealt with, but if someone is BGP
>peering, it pretty much boils down to an announcement change,
>correct?
>
>We, as a provider, would not mind paying some nominal fee (cheap!)
>to our upstream provider for continued use of IP addresses after we
>have terminated our service. We have even considered getting the
>smallest possible connection to that particular provider just to be
>able to continually use their IP addresses. This does not seem like
>a very effective alternative for us or our upstream provider.
>
>I am wondering what impact, if any, would requiring portability of
>IP addresses under certain criteria (BGP peering, etc) have on the
>Internet?
>
