[7933] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Big Squeeze
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jim Jagielski)
Sun Mar 2 15:26:19 1997
From: Jim Jagielski <jim@jaguNET.com>
To: nathan@netrail.net (Nathan Stratton)
Date: Sun, 2 Mar 1997 15:15:57 -0500 (EST)
Cc: jim@jaguNET.com, cnordin@vni.net, huddle@mci.net, karl@Mcs.Net,
alan@mindvision.com, nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: jim@jaguNET.com
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970302144012.21447A-100000@netrail.net> from "Nathan Stratton" at Mar 2, 97 02:42:51 pm
Nathan Stratton wrote:
>
> On Sun, 2 Mar 1997, Jim Jagielski wrote:
>
> > It's the renumbering part that I think gives people the most
> > heartburn... By the time you get "big enough" to warrent your
> > own block, you've got at least 32 ClassCs of which, I'm betting,
> > at least 28 are "given" to LAN-connected customers. This is
> > a _major_ headache not only for the ISP to go thru but also a
> > major headache to force your customers to go thru. That is, what
> > I think, is what really is most painful; that by the time you
> > are big enough to have your own block, you're too big to want
> > to renumber: Catch 22
>
> 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.
>
Oh I agree... It's just that I know of more than a few ISPs
who have done things like keep their current NSP, but with
something like a 56k line (so they don't have to renumber) and
then get a bigger pipe from somebody else and just use BGP to
make everything work...
--
====================================================================
Jim Jagielski | jaguNET Access Services
jim@jaguNET.com | http://www.jaguNET.com/
"Not the Craw... the CRAW!"
