Inevitable death, was Re: Verizon Public Policy on Netflix

Matthew Petach mpetach at
Tue Jul 15 01:47:18 UTC 2014

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 4:32 PM, Scott Helms <khelms at> wrote:

> Matt,
> While I understand your point _and_ I agree that in most cases an ISP
> should have an ASN.  Having said that,  I work with multiple operators
> around the US that have exactly one somewhat economical choice for
> connectivity to the rest of the Internet.  In that case having a ASN is
> nice, but serves little to no practical purpose.  For clarity's sake all 6
> of the ones I am thinking about specifically have more than 5k broadband
> subs.

And as long as they're happy with their single upstream
connectivity picture, more power to them.

But the minute they're less than happy with
their connectivity option, it would sure be
nice to have their own ASN and their own
IP space, so that going to a different upstream
provider would be possible.  Heck, even just
having it as a *bargaining point* would be

By not having it, they're essentially locking
the slave collar around their own neck, and
handing the leash to their upstream, along
with their wallet.  As a freedom-of-choice
loving person, it boggles my mind why anyone
would subject their business to that level
of slavery.  But I do acknowledge your
point, that for some category of people,
they are happy as clams with that

> I continue to vehemently disagree with the notion that ASN = ISP since
> many/most of the ASNs represent business networks that have nothing to do
> with Internet access.

Oh, yes; totally agreed.  It's a one-way relationship
in my mind; it's nigh-on impossible to be a competitive
ISP without an ASN; but in no way shape or form does
having an ASN make you an ISP.



More information about the NANOG mailing list