-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The following is explicitly not written as co-chair of the IETF multi6 WG.
Kurt, as I made presentation in front of you and Brian Carpenter at multi6 WG meeting of IETF58 in Minneapolis
I think I have seen close to 40 presentations that all would solve the multihoming problem one way or the other, or at least parts of it.
on Nov. 2003, it is possible for a small ISP delegated address blocks from multiple larger ISPs and can still have its own policy.
It's possible for a small ISP to get several blocks from their upstream, route them inside their network and assign each of their customers with an address out of each of those blocks. Does it scale? Nope. Can it handle failures in the upstream? No. Etc.
Since then, you made no counter argument against my presentation that it is your fallacy to say things against the presentation.
There are several of the proposals in multi6 that have never received comments, nor support of any kind.
For those of you who are not familiar with my (expired) draft used at the meeting, it is available at:
http://www.watersprings.org/pub/id/draft-ohta-multihomed-isps-00.txt
The interim conclusion of the draft is:
Thus, it is not essential that ISPs have their own TLAs.
Your document does not address the criterias for being classified in a particular category. It does not address what would happen if an ISP grow, get's split/divided. It does not address what the financial models for transit would be. It does not address the non-balance of local vs global traffic coverage. It does not take into account the current peering economics of the Internet. So it's really hard to say anything regarding it.
If he changes the single upstream his customers needs to renumber.
If one changes homing, one needs to renumber, of course.
Which is a limiting factor that I think you will that customers will find unacceptable.
But, it has nothing to do with multihoming or hierarchical ISPs.
Just as we shouldn't discourage customers change ISPs, we shouldn't discourage ISPs change upper level ISPs.
Having to renumber when chaining ISPs is not to discourage _change_ of ISP. It's to discourage signing up with that ISP in the first place.
In favour of *what* to replace it?
RIR membership.
No. It is proven not to scale.
In what way?
Does it mean that it is beneficial for you if RIRs have more power even though it sacrifices ISPs and users of the Internet by requiring routers with a lot more routing table entries than necessary?
I am not following this. In what way would the RIRs get more "power"? The policies of the RIRs is set by the RIR community. We are having a lot more routing entries today than we need to, and people seems to think it is a good idea. Actually it is today used to implement policies that follow requirements set by users to their ISPs. Users that pay to get that policy. - - kurtis - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBQNgi/aarNKXTPFCVEQIAcQCfYowvBqwQ8MRQusq68q1OBTkKdwkAoPTb zVVRNw/ZJa4p6sGXKMM20RRC =DMSt -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----