| <<< Chronological >>> | Author Index Subject Index | <<< Threads >>> |
Peter Gradwell peter@localhost writes:
You're absolutely right. Many ISPs won't do this because they don't want to. If we received a request where someone said "my ISP doesn't allow this" then that would be fine. We just make sure people know about the possibility.At 17:29 17/04/2003 +0200, leo vegoda wrote:The concept of PI space is definitely not broken. There is a very real need for organisations, large and small, to be able to connect to multiple Internet providersMulti-homing can be done without PI address space.But only if both providers agree, and both providers will not agree or cooperate because it causes them to completely bugger their network configurations. ISPs thus suggest that $customer gets PI space.
I want to check I understand what you suggest here. Do you mean that the PA -vs- PI distinction should be removed? i.e. all IPv4 address space would become portable?This is obviously much less convenient for the registrant when changing ISPs. It means that they may feel 'tied' to the ISP whose address space they use. The setup is likely to be quick(er) and eas(y/ier).Absolutely. If an organisation wants to be connected to multiple upstreams then they presumably want to be provider independent. So, telling them to poke holes in one ISP's fabric is not going to help.
The solution has to be to look at it from the other perspective and make everyone provider independent. In the interim, I think we should just look at stretching out the current address space so it supports legitimate uses and predicted capacity requirements.
| <<< Chronological >>> | Author Subject | <<< Threads >>> |