[7932] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Big Squeeze
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Avi Freedman)
Sun Mar 2 15:24:58 1997
From: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
To: nathan@netrail.net (Nathan Stratton)
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 15:19:30 -0500 (EST)
Cc: jim@jaguNET.com, cnordin@vni.net, huddle@mci.net, karl@Mcs.Net,
alan@mindvision.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970302144012.21447A-100000@netrail.net> from "Nathan Stratton" at Mar 2, 97 02:42:51 pm
> Yes, but as a smaller ISP you can offer much better service, and help you
> customers renumber. Yes I of all people know it is a _major_ headache, but
> it can be done, and there are ways to do it.
>
> Just because it is a "_major_ headache", is not a good reason to add a
> route to the global table, or have the nic give you a bigger block then
> you need at that time.
Look. I think Kim's point is true. They *do* allocate more space
*than* you actually need so that when you need it, you can actually
get it *then*.
If you're growing fast enough, you'll have to renumber *once*.
If you choose poorly your upstream providers, you'll have to
renumber more than once.
> Nathan Stratton President, NetRail,Inc.
Avi
