Re: ARIN allocating /20 netblocks?
In article <19980516152145.42206@mcs.net>, Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net> wrote:
Why do you need to renumber out of previous space if MCI doesn't have to when they get a bigger block handed to them?
Like MCI, Jon will not need to renumber out of a /14. You only have to ever renumber out of small blocks. A /20 is not hard to renumber. -- Shields, CrossLink.
On Sun, May 17, 1998 at 12:14:25AM +0000, Michael Shields wrote:
In article <19980516152145.42206@mcs.net>, Karl Denninger <karl@mcs.net> wrote:
Why do you need to renumber out of previous space if MCI doesn't have to when they get a bigger block handed to them?
Like MCI, Jon will not need to renumber out of a /14. You only have to ever renumber out of small blocks. A /20 is not hard to renumber. -- Shields, CrossLink.
Ok, so I only lose 16 T1 customers instead of 1024. Of course, those 16 represent half of my annual revenue at that point. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
Ok, so I only lose 16 T1 customers instead of 1024.
If you lose 16 T1 customers during a renumbering of a /20, either you don't know how to renumber, or they were already unhappy for some other reason. If you tell your customers "You need to renumber because evil forces are colluding against us," they won't be very amenable... try explaining that they'll get better connectivity. The social and technical problems of renumbering a /20 are nonzero but not large. I've done it. -- Shields, CrossLink.
On Sun, May 17, 1998 at 01:16:58AM -0000, Michael Shields wrote:
Ok, so I only lose 16 T1 customers instead of 1024.
If you lose 16 T1 customers during a renumbering of a /20, either you don't know how to renumber, or they were already unhappy for some other reason.
If you tell your customers "You need to renumber because evil forces are colluding against us," they won't be very amenable... try explaining that they'll get better connectivity.
The social and technical problems of renumbering a /20 are nonzero but not large.
I've done it.
Why should someone with significant installed base do it at all? Explaining that they'll get "better connectivity" rings hollow. Their obvious question would then be "uh, what's wrong with our connectivity now?" followed by a few more that you might not want to answer. Yes, it can be done. No, its not a reasonable request to make of a dedicated line customer with significant infrastructure who you had, have, and want to keep. We have some customers right now which encompass multiple downline connected parties over large geographic areas, and some of their equipment is incapable of doing things like DHCP (one comes to mind that happens to be a state agency). Renumbering THEM would be a job out of the depths of Hades itself; even broaching the subject would likely cost us the account. Any significant ISP has customers like this; there is no reason to impose these costs on you because you're smaller than someone else - no technical reason that is. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
On Sat, 16 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
agency). Renumbering THEM would be a job out of the depths of Hades itself; even broaching the subject would likely cost us the account.
I see. So if you tell the customer that they need to renumber, then they tell you to stuff it and switch to a new provider who... tells them that they must renumber out of your soon-to-be-reassigned address space. I just don't see this as a realistic example of a situation in which a renumbering ISP is at a severe business disadvantage. In fact I can't remember ever seeing any such realistic example nor do I ever remember hearing of a case in which an ISP lost a significant amount of business because of renumbering. -- Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting Memra Communications Inc. - E-mail: michael@memra.com http://www.memra.com - *check out the new name & new website*
On Sat, May 16, 1998 at 11:14:46PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
I just don't see this as a realistic example of a situation in which a renumbering ISP is at a severe business disadvantage. In fact I can't remember ever seeing any such realistic example nor do I ever remember hearing of a case in which an ISP lost a significant amount of business because of renumbering.
I can not speak of experience, but I'd suggest that renumbering would strain an ISPs "good-will" with customers ... pissing off a large customer is going to give an ISP a bad look particularly if it is known that other (larger) ISPs don't need to force such things. Particularly if an ISP places its reputation more on technical capability and convenience and less on its user-friendly demeanor, this could really hurt. I haven't been following this issue much, but I think Karl raises what may well be a relevant point. -- // dannyman yori aiokomete || Our Honored Symbol deserves \\/ http://www.dannyland.org/~dannyman/ || an Honorable Retirement (UIUC)
At 23:14 16/05/98 -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
agency). Renumbering THEM would be a job out of the depths of Hades itself; even broaching the subject would likely cost us the account.
I see. So if you tell the customer that they need to renumber, then they tell you to stuff it and switch to a new provider who... tells them that they must renumber out of your soon-to-be-reassigned address space.
I just don't see this as a realistic example of a situation in which a renumbering ISP is at a severe business disadvantage. In fact I can't remember ever seeing any such realistic example nor do I ever remember hearing of a case in which an ISP lost a significant amount of business because of renumbering.
(A) Customer was reasonably happy to stay but gets prompted to look elsewhere since the main pain of moving is one he's going to hit anyways. You can't argue this as good for the ISP. (B) Customer is happy to stay and will - but the relationship may be soured somewhat by the renumbering process. There's certainly a LOT more scope for something to barf and a someone to need blaming then for someone to say "gee thanks for making us renumber". (C) Customer decides the pain of renumbering is such that he decides to mocve to one of the really big boys so he never has to do it after this once. Maybe he's wrong and will have to re-address the issue at some point but even so some people may take this not entirely unreasonable attitude. I fully agree that all these people should be able to accept and handle a renumber without too much hassle but that doesn't prevent the fact that there's at least some scope for the customer winding up leaving the ISP over this issue and no scope for the opposite. Thus growing ISPs which have to renumebr more often are going to be disadvantaged. Manar
On Sat, May 16, 1998 at 11:14:46PM -0700, Michael Dillon wrote:
On Sat, 16 May 1998, Karl Denninger wrote:
agency). Renumbering THEM would be a job out of the depths of Hades itself; even broaching the subject would likely cost us the account.
I see. So if you tell the customer that they need to renumber, then they tell you to stuff it and switch to a new provider who... tells them that they must renumber out of your soon-to-be-reassigned address space.
Michael, you just love strawmen don't you? If they renumber because of a change in provider, they KNOW IN ADVANCE that this is going to be required and that they'll have to do it. They also know that they'll only have to do it ONCE. There's a huge difference between doing something out of choice and doing something out of FORCE. Tell you what - when we force {Big Provider} to return a /16 to get a /15, return a /15 to get a /14, etc - then it will be FAIR. Then everyone will have to renumber as they grow. Then nobody will be at a disadvantage, because everyone will be equally burdened (relative to size). Why is it that the Worldcoms, MCIs, Sprints, etc of the world haven't rushed forward to be the good citizens of the world, consolidating their route tables dramatically (they ARE the biggest consumers) and do exactly this? Answer THAT question and you'll be getting warm. -- -- Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - Serving Chicagoland and Wisconsin http://www.mcs.net/ | T1's from $600 monthly / All Lines K56Flex/DOV | NEW! Corporate ISDN Prices dropped by up to 50%! Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| EXCLUSIVE NEW FEATURE ON ALL PERSONAL ACCOUNTS Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | *SPAMBLOCK* Technology now included at no cost
participants (5)
-
dannyman -
Karl Denninger -
Manar Hussain -
Michael Dillon -
shields＠crosslink.net