[NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)

William Allen Simpson bsimpson at morningstar.com
Sun Feb 11 17:04:55 UTC 1996

> From: Robert Du Gaue <rdugaue at calweb.com>
> To: Network Registration Role Account <netreg at internic.net>
> cc: nanog at merit.edu, cidrd at IEPG.ORG, iepg at IEPG.ORG, iab at isi.edu, iesg at isi.edu,
>         dennis.mcconnell at nolte.com, noc at pagesat.net, norman at pagesat.net

So kind of you to include so many lists.  (:-{

I truncated the CC to the appropriate list for NA service providers.

> How the hell can I be a successful ISP when first, I probably
> can not justify 64 blocks (and if I do Sprint may change it to 128
> anyways!)

Let's think about this for a moment.  How do you define "successful"?

If you mean, you already have lots of customers signed up before you
ask for your first block, then of course you won't have any problem
justifying 64 or more C's.  And you will be able to afford to run your
own continental links to the various NAPs.

I do not see how having no customers signed up qualifies as successful.

> and second if the blocks I get are not routed through one of
> the MAJOR backbone proivders then they are useless to me and my end
> users!

On the other hand, are you saying you are "successful", but you are not
running your own continental network?  Why then, you must be connected
to "one of the MAJOR" providers, correct?  It only takes one.  You get
your addresses from them, not from the global pool.

As an alternative, I have long advocated that you get your addresses
from an Exchange, and that Exchange arrange for connectivity to the rest
of the net.  There is more than one such Exchange in your region.

> Using old policies to justify not doing something against what
> is obviously discrimination against smaller ISPs does nothing to solve
> the problem.
I don't know what "old policy" you are referring to.  The warning about
small unaggregated routes is relatively new.  Please be more specific.

I cannot parsed your sentence.  What specific problem are you
complaining about, and what is _your_ solution?

Bill.Simpson at um.cc.umich.edu
          Key fingerprint =  2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3  59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2

More information about the NANOG mailing list