Request for comment -- BCP38
jay at west.net
Sun Oct 2 19:15:00 UTC 2016
On 9/26/16 9:37 AM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
> On Mon 2016-Sep-26 12:25:58 -0400, John R. Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>>>>> I gather the usual customer response to this is "if you don't want our
>>>>> $50K/mo, I'm sure we can find another ISP who does."
>>> I myself am talking about the latter and included the option of PI
>>> space to cover that (although I guess at some point this can be made
>>> fly with PA space from another provider if both providers are willing
>>> enough to play ball), though from the $50/mo figure John listed, I'm
>>> assuming he's talking about the latter.
>> Who said $50/mo?
> Apparently I need even more caffeine that I first imagined...
> If we're talking about networks with that kind of MRC, is it really that
> far of a stretch to require PI space for this? Then again: If we're
> talking about that kind of MRC, then I'm assuming ISP A can be coaxed to
> allow explicit and well-defined exceptions on the customer's links.
> This discussion started wrt to COTS dual-ISP routers though, as
> mentioned in Ken Chase's message, no? Where I'm assuming we're talking
> about mom-and-pop operations rather than a $50K/mo business account.
This is getting insanely silly, especially for this list.
A $50K/mo customer should have PI space and announce via BGP to both
(all) upstreams. He isn't going to do this with a COTS Belkin "router".
A mom-and-pop with said Belkin router who ties to source its /29 or
dynamic /32 from ISP A out ISP B isn't going to get very far with it.
The COTS "router" isn't going to NAT the traffic out the wrong interface
in the first place.
In any case, ISP B will never see the return traffic. The rest of the
Net isn't going to accept its /29 and /32 random advertisements, period.
Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay at impulse.net
Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/
Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV
More information about the NANOG