[88727] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John A. Kilpatrick)
Wed Feb 15 21:55:09 2006
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 18:51:16 -0800 (PST)
From: "John A. Kilpatrick" <john@hypergeek.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602160034130.4366@pop.ict1.everquick.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
> Stop. Examine. Think. Then respond.
[...]
> Coop ASNs/IP save ASNs and aggregate routes. Full stop.
Maybe I missed it, but is there something in your solution that keeps
dual-homed leaves from having to renumber when changing ISPs? In your
concept, is there some "ownership" of the address space on the part of the
customer? I know that being able to swing to a new provider (due one of a
hundred reasons, including Layer 8 manangement decisions) without having
to renumber or suffer significant downtime is one of the things that makes
dual-homing appealing.
--
John A. Kilpatrick
john@hypergeek.net Email| http://www.hypergeek.net/
john-page@hypergeek.net Text pages| ICQ: 19147504
remember: no obstacles/only challenges
