Well you and the rest of these so called "dreamers" can help with the purchase of my new routers that don't exist yet to support you wanting to multi-home a /29 and have the rest of the Internet world hold all of these said /29's in their tables. Most folks who get a /29's don't care how they get to and from the internet, they just want to always be able to get there. TE at that granular of a level is not needed. So in other words, you and the rest of the world of these dreamers can keep dreaming, because I doubt any sensible ISP would accept and pass along anyone announcing /29's .... and then there's V6, which I won't even get started on. Most ISP's are having a hard time holding 300k ipv4 routes as of today, and you want to de-aggregate even farther??
Clue On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Mike <mike-na...@tiedyenetworks.com> wrote: > > Small-site multi-homing is one of the great inequities of the Internet > and one that can, and should, be solved. I envision an Internet of the > future where anyone with any mixture of any type of network connections can > achieve, automatically, provider independence and inbound/outbound load > sharing across disparate links. Gone is the built in hostage situation of > having to either use your provider assigned IP's (>%99 of internet connected > sites today), or the quantum leap of being an AS with PI space (and the > associated technical baggage to configure and manage that beast). End users > should have the power to dictate their own routing policies and not suffer > thru 'damping', 'urpf', or other policies imposed on how or when their > packets come and go. So if you want to use 2 dsl lines and a CDMA modem, or > a satellite and a fiber, or 27 dial up modems and a T1, you should be able > to do that and the network should work with you to deliver your packets no > matter where 'you' connect or how. > > What it's gonna take is new routing paradigms and new thinking about the > role of providers and users and a lowering of the barriers between these two > for more cooperation in the overall structure of the network. Just like > classfull addressing giving way to cidr, I belive hierarchal routing will > give way to truely dynamic routing where all participants have equal > capabilities over their own domain with no one (or group) of 'providers' > having any more or less influence on global reachability for any 'users' who > choose to go their own way, and I expect that to be an easy (or even > default) choice in the future. > > You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day > you'll join us, and the world will live as one. > > > > What is the issue here, that your DSL provider won't speak BGP with you >>> no matter how many times you've asked, so you're complaining to NANOG >>> about it because you don't have the ability or authority to change >>> providers? Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but the emails >>> so far haven't been very clear and this isn't making a lot of sense. >>> >>> > >
