In search of uplink vendor

bmanning at bmanning at
Thu Jan 12 17:07:35 UTC 2012

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:01:58AM -0500, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Paul Kaminsky wrote:
> >We are at a stage where we need an all-out uplink vendor to fuel our 
> >business endeavor. The bells and whistles we need are:
> >
> >1. 1 Gbps link with complete block of UDP/ICMP protocol
> >2. BGP session with our AS
> >3. Ability to blackhole (no route to host) by /32 prefix
> >4. Presence in Equinix SV1 or SV5 (San Jose) DC's - this is not mandatory, 
> >we're open for suggestions
> >
> >If you feel your company measures up or is a cut above the rest, please 
> >get in touch with us to discuss the specific details.
> Note: I am not a vendor.
> One question:
> 1. Not knowing anything about your business, is there a specific reason 
> that you want "a complete block of UDP/ICMP protocol"?  That can be 
> problematic with IPv4, and downright foolish with IPv6.
> jms

	perhaps we are walking around w/ incomplete notions of what 
	constitutes a "complete block of UDP/ICMP protocol"...

	for me, literally,this makes no sense whatsoever.  ratcheting back
	on my literal filter (be liberal in what you accept) I beleive
	what he is asking for is a contigious block of IP addresses 
	for use in his network.  am also making the inference that he is
	only looking for IPv4 (no route to host by /32 prefix).

	so the only remaining, burning question is - what size block?

	a /33?  a /31?  maybe a /28? or a /22?  a /19?  

	(the /33 is right out... filtering on /32 would block both hosts!)

	I think its quite reasonable to expect a contigious block of addresses,
	regardless of address family. Not at all "downright foolish". 
	 It is rare to see someone -not- get a contigious block.  

	ymmv of course.

More information about the NANOG mailing list