a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)

Edward B. DREGER eddy+public+spam at noc.everquick.net
Thu Feb 16 18:32:59 UTC 2006

JA> Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:44:27 -0500
JA> From: Joe Abley

JA> Personally, if I was going to multi-home, I would far prefer that my various
JA> transit providers don't cooperate at all, and have sets of peers and/or
JA> upstream transit providers that are as different as possible from each
JA> others'. The last thing I need are operational procedures which are shared
JA> between them.

The biggest sharing would be IP assignment.  Let 'A' start at one end of 
the pool, 'B' at the other, and they'll meet in the "middle".  When one 
hits the boundary, it can be moved.

"You're multihoming with 'A' and with us?  Okay, fill in the box on your 
router that says 'ASN' with '64511'."

JA> If all you want is last-mile redundancy, surely you can just attach twice to
JA> the same ISP and avoid all the routing complications completely?


JA> I get the feeling that there's a lot of solutions-designing going on in this
JA> thread without the benefit of prior problem-stating.


Consumers want to multihome.  They may have a dynamic /32, or a /27 if 
they're "big". They want to do this right here, right now, today, with 
IPv4, using two separate upstreams.


claims ~1B internet users worldwide.  Let's pretend that 1% of those 
were to SOmultiHOme, and that no routes are coalesced.  That's 10M new 

I argue that the current combination of technology and administrative 
policy cannot support that.  Indeed, if it could, _why_ are providers 
not accepting /32 announcements?  If there's no technical reason not to, 
and a financial reason to, why is it not done?

After all, hardware is cheap, upgrading is a fact of life, and allowing 
SOHO users to multihome their /29 makes money!  Why wait for IPv6 to use 
/32 perfect match?  Let's do it today, with IPv4!

Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/
A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/
Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building
Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national
Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita
DO NOT send mail to the following addresses:
davidc at brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq at intc.net -*- sam at everquick.net
Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked.
Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.

More information about the NANOG mailing list