On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
|> If I choose to extend |> that privilege |> to people who meet certain minimum requirements because I believe the |> benefits will outweight the costs, then that's *my* right.
Please detail the exact costs of a, BGP inserted, routing table entry. Is it, maybe, 50 cents? Now, how much are you getting for a DS1 link? What does that cost, exactly, considering that an outfit capable of setting up multi-homing are probably the folks that your techs never hear from, but once a year? That appears to be a margin that is far above keystone. How greedy do you want to be?
Roeland, I don't think you're following the arguement here. What he was contending was accepting /24's into his routing tables from the global routing table that were generated by someone ELSES microsegment BGP speaking customer.
|> All others can |> pay me to do it if they want me to. Your rights end at my network.
I agree that nobody has a "right" to have their prefixes listed in my routing tables unless they're a direct customer of mine. Then again, it is my obligation to my customers to show them a full view of the net and if we're talking about microallocations vs someone carving up a CIDR block and their customers announcing a /24 out of it, I have to accept them to reach them unless I'm pointing default somewhere. [blah] Small blocks that are carved out of Carrier-X's /16 and announced as /24's don't count. They're reachable by the aggregate even if I don't accept the longer prefix. So, unless something changes, we'll be accepting /24 and shorter prefixes from any blocks that the RIRs assign /24's from if we want to provide a full defaultless view to our customers.
BTW, randy's position is rather strange, coming from someone that used to support the FidoNet community, by being the FTSC chair.
Politics change. Business models change. Positions change. Not so strange. --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc