BGP announcements and small providers

Wed Feb 26 18:05:23 UTC 1997

This is not a practical expectation. If done on a wide-scale basis,
the whole concept of route aggregation is for naught. I would
suggest tyhat you read:

 RFC2008, "Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies
 for Internet Routing", http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc2008.txt

- paul

At 12:08 PM 2/26/97 +0000, Sean Rolinson wrote:

>Agreed.
>
>And it is my opinion that upstream providers should allow (or be 
>required) portability of assigned IP addresses.  Naturally, there are 
>some logistics that need to be dealt with, but if someone is BGP 
>peering, it pretty much boils down to an announcement change, 
>correct?  
>
>We, as a provider, would not mind paying some nominal fee (cheap!) 
>to our upstream provider for continued use of IP addresses after we 
>have terminated our service.  We have even considered getting the 
>smallest possible connection to that particular provider just to be 
>able to continually use their IP addresses.  This does not seem like 
>a very effective alternative for us or our upstream provider.    
>
>I am wondering what impact, if any, would requiring portability of 
>IP addresses under certain criteria (BGP peering, etc) have on the 
>Internet?  
>