BGP announcements and small providers
karl at Mcs.Net
Wed Feb 26 14:42:27 UTC 1997
> At 06:17 PM 2/25/97 -0700, Chris Phillips wrote:
> >We service hundreds of dedicated customers and some customers don't mind
> >renumbering (if they are small) but most of our larger customers who have
> >more than 100-200 hosts on their network have expressed GREAT opposition to
> >any such notion of renumbering. Its not that they don't want to do it
> >because they are lazy, on the contrary, many companies cannot the afford the
> >downtime or cost asociated with renumbering their LAN/WAN. I agree that
> >renumbering is an important aspect of address grooming for better agregation
> >but there are some real $$$ costs to some end-user networks to do so. Also,
> >how many times can you ask a customer to renumber before they bail and go
> It's been suggested that renumbering is a fact of life; everyone will
> do it at least once in their lifetime. This is one of the reasons why
> an entire working group in the IETF has been created to deal with this
> from an operational perspective. See:
> See also RFC2071.
> - paul
And as soon as the mainstream hardware we all sell to people, and that has
significant market penetration in the installed base, makes this reasonable
to do for a *large* operation, this will be reasonable.
However, as the state of IPV4 and its hardware sits right now, it is NOT
reasonable to do *other than on the boundaries of a customer's individual
That is, if a PROVIDER changes upstream links, it is unreasonable to expect
their *customers* to renumber. To force that paradigm is to attempt to
tie an ISP to a given provider. The requirement to renumber comes out of the
blue, it is an unanticipated cost, and one which is neither under the
control of nor a result of the actions of the customer.
Better go talk to some attorneys before you do things that lead to this
If a *customer* changes providers, they bear the costs of their actions.
If the operative cause of their renumbering is their decision to leave one
ISP and go to another, *they* are directly responsible for their own pain.
THAT is much more likely to pass muster.
Karl Denninger (karl at MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
| 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info at mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal
More information about the NANOG