larger space was: Re: [NIC-....
Alan B. Clegg
abc at gateway.com
Thu Feb 15 20:23:34 UTC 1996
On Thu, 15 Feb 1996, Carl Payne wrote:
> >The whole point of getting the bigger address space is to be better than
> >your competition (multi-homed, etc etc.)
> The point of a larger address space is ease of deployment. The current
> thinking is, "We don't want it to be easier if it wastes numbers. Work a
> little harder."
How exactly does a larger address space ease deployment of an ISP?
"Current thinking" of who? Sure we should conserve space, but that was
not my argument. My argument is that small ISPs are *NOT* going to
cooperate to get larger blocks. They use any tactic to make themselves
out to be 'larger fish' in that network bowl. Ever seen a nasty catfight
between small local ISPs? I have. Not pretty. Cooperation? Not likely.
> Besides, if you think for one minute that the customers of most ISPs
> give a hoot about larger address space, or that being multi-homed will
> GUARANTEE a dialup customer will go to them, then you'd be interested to
> hear about my real estate ventures...
I have no interest in your real estate, but I *KNOW* that customers of
most, if not all ISPs care about the reliability of their network, ergo,
the connectivity that their ISP has to its neighbors and that IS a
If your sales people (for all of you small ISPs out there that don't have
connections to 3+ NAPs) aren't using the "We are connected at TWO points
where [insert rival network name here]'s network is only connected to
ONE!" pitch, you have the wrong sales people.
BTW, I'm not talking about dialup clients. I would not do a dialup ISP
for all the AOL/GNN customers in the world. Now, talk ISDN & T1, I
might.. just maybe... NAH...
PS: can you format your text for 80 columns next time so that I don't have
to do it in my reply?
PPS: can you explain your train of thought on 'larger address spaces are
easier to deploy' so that I can attempt to follow it?
\ Alan B. Clegg
Just because I can \ Internet Staff
does not mean I will. \ gateway.com, inc.
More information about the NANOG