Hi, On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 07:44:23AM +0200, Kurt Erik Lindqvist wrote:
If you estimate that you will continue to be very small, you could use a /40 or such from one of your upstream ISPs (which is a problem *today*, as there are not enough upstream ISPs, indeed).
This doesn't fly. He can't set his own routing policy and he can't multihome. If he changes the single upstream his customers needs to renumber.
As of today, "more-specific BGP multihoming" works. So he *can* set his own routing policy. Admittedly, if changing the upstream, his customers would need to be renumbered (but this is not too different from IPv4 today with "very small ISPs that do not want to become LIR" - they use upstream space for a couple of years, and eventually become LIR and have to renumber). I can see that people don't like it, I'm just mentioning that it *could* be done. We will need to do something like that for the class "is ISP but is not LIR", even if we abandon the 200-users rule.
So shall we abandon it? Yes.
In favour of *what* to replace it? RIR membership.
I'm still waiting for someone to yell "WE MUST KEEP THIS RULE!!!"... :-) Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 60210 (58081) SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299