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 at Space.Net
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14   Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen              Fax : +49-89-32356-299