Re: more specific routes in today reality
Hi, On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 10:00:37PM +0100, Aled Morris wrote:
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:29:54PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
If you want to be multihomed, the costs for routers & co. are far higher than for being LIR. If you can't afford being LIR, be single-homed.
Surely there is more to being a LIR than simply as a way of buying a /20 for multihoming!
Yes.
RIPE is effectively a member-run organisation; being an LIR means taking part responsibility and getting involved via the working groups.
Yes.
The argument "buying the RIPE membership is cheaper than the router you need to run full BGP" basically sends a message that anyone with enough money can buy their own /20 and AS number without having to justify how they will use the address space, and without any obligation to the Internet community at large.
Which is not the way it should be (and it is not, according to policies), but you're twisting my sentence without quoting the statement above. Jan was complaining that it's too expensive to become a LIR. I put that cost into relation to the cost people have to pay anyway if they want to do *proper* multihoming, or put more precisely, be part of the default-free zone. And compared to that cost, becoming a LIR should be the least of your worries. I do not advocate that everybody that wants to have globally visible address space become a LIR. It is one way, for ISPs it's a good way (because it means you can handle address requirements of your customers in a practical and direct way), but for other entities it might be the wrong way. But *costs* are not a good criterium to decide that. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
Jan was complaining that it's too expensive to become a LIR. I put that cost into relation to the cost people have to pay anyway if they want to do *proper* multihoming, or put more precisely, be part of the default-free zone. And compared to that cost, becoming a LIR should be the least of your worries.
.and as a brief sidenote: the ARIN community discussed the high entry level fee as an effective barrier to entry for obtaining globally unique prefixes. It was discussed that such a high cost helped protect the global routing table from "contamination" by those with no bona fide engineering goals and/or questionable motivations for injecting further routes. /david
On Wed, 10 Oct 2001 00:31:39 +0200 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote: (..snip..)
Jan was complaining that it's too expensive to become a LIR. I put that cost into relation to the cost people have to pay anyway if they want to do *proper* multihoming, or put more precisely, be part of the default-free zone. And compared to that cost, becoming a LIR should be the least of your worries.
Well. Forcing PI owners to get involved within the RIPE would help all. Even sharing their experience (from business view) and teaching them (through ripe meetings & courses etc) would help everybody. And a "PI LIR" (NOT enterprise LIR) would bring some money back to RIPE helping the community as a whole.
I do not advocate that everybody that wants to have globally visible address space become a LIR. It is one way, for ISPs it's a good way (because it means you can handle address requirements of your customers in a practical and direct way), but for other entities it might be the wrong way. But *costs* are not a good criterium to decide that.
ACK, but it would solve a lot of problems. Solutions are not always good for all, but for most of all. Gerd, i think we should work more close together on this issue to address some of the issues as a draft to ripe. --jan -- Jan-Ahrent Czmok http://www.lambda-solutions.de Technical Advisor ISP Hofdcker Str. 14, 65207 Wiesbaden Tel. +49-(0)-174-3074404
participants (3)
-
David R Huberman -
Gert Doering -
Jan-Ahrent Czmok