Re: Chiappa blows his brains out (was Re: Policy Statement)
Joel_M_Snyder@Opus1.COM writes
GIVEN that there exists some set of organizations who want to purchase multiple T1s from multiple independent suppliers for purposes of reliability and load sharing yet have need for less than 255 unique IP addresses, and GIVEN that certain extremely popular software products (such as Netscape Navigator) which are important to these organizations were developed by programmers who seem to have no knowledge of either efficiency or the way that the Internet works, and GIVEN that I have sufficient knowledge about routing as is necessary to fully understand every technical issue involved, and GIVEN that I have a rudimentary and imperfect understanding of the political and economic issues regarding IP numbering and the propagation of routes thereunto, HOW do I resolve the conflict between justifiable corporate service requirements and the expressed statements on these mailing lists the past few weeks which seem to imply that anyone who does not consume at least a /18 worth of address space is not worthy of being globally routed?
I am asking, I suspect, not for a technical answer (there being none other than Chiappa's "it's gonna cost"), but the most politically correct answer to give the organization (which is not Netscape).
You present a hard edge case that isn't particularly well met by the current infrastructure and it can't necessarily be done well or even done at all. (Sean's tricky chocolate-consulting hack excluded). Probably the best thing that be currently supported is getting two diverse connections to a single provider that can globally aggregate your network. The connections should go to different POPs and should follow seperate physical paths. This should provide you the desired reliability and load sharing. -scott
Scott, ] You present a hard edge case that isn't particularly well met by the current ] infrastructure and it can't necessarily be done well or even done at all. ] (Sean's tricky chocolate-consulting hack excluded). Why is it excluded? It's too easy for people to make up reasons why they shouldn't have to think, or heaven forbid, renumber. I'd wager a pound of reese's pieces that Sean threw those paragraphs out of his mind, with less than an hour's thought. The tricky thing about Sean is realizing that he thinks about problem solutions, not excuses as to why the problems can't be solved. As for the reordering crisis, order the book from the Phonics people, it might help -> D-H-C-P. What? Your software doesn't support it? Erm, call your sales rep. Make threats; threaten to go to Microsoft who does. These things can be done, and the current state of the net can be much eased by providers enforcing prefix aggregation impetus. It could also be done by being "good net.citizens" and all that ruckus, but the masses don't move unless forced to. Somone needs to force them. Thank you, Sprint, for slowing the acceleration with your /19 policy. Now, let's see if we can't decrease the problem with historical prefix aggregation rules, or retirement so as to achieve the same effect. -alan
participants (2)
-
Alan Hannan -
Scott Huddle