nanog mailing list archives
Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role
From: Avi Freedman <freedman () netaxs com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 1996 10:04:46 -0500 (EST)
It really is about time that some of the larger ISP's started following the lead of folks like netaxs.com and become aggregate providers for local ISP's in their cities. This way the aggregator can be doubly and triply homed and deal with all the BGP4 nastiness. The ISP's gain the benefit of that multihoming to their city and in addition can get some of the redundancy-in-case-of-failure by buying a T1 and frame relay, or a T1 and ISDN dialup to their aggregate provider.
Not just netaxs.com... Also tlg.net in CA And cais.net in Baltimore/The DC area And new-york.net in the NY/Jersey area Of course, all of us are selling these connections, so it's not strictly that we're waking up in the morning saying "We need to be aggregate providers for all of the local ISPs to preserve global routing table space". I think the motivation is more to: a) Enhance reachability to local content/customers by slapping them on our network; b) Make it easier (as you say) for new/existing ISPs to get most of the advantages of being multiply-connected to the 'net without paying the cost or having to buy or earn the clues; c) Support the infrastructures we'd like to/need to have; and d) Yes, even make some money.
Every ISP wants to have a backup connection and right now most assume that multi-homing is the only way to achieve this.
When someone connects into us with a dedicated line we encourage them to get a 56k or T1 frame mapped into us for use strictly as a backup - and preferably from another LEC.
I believe that a middle-tier between the ISP and the NSP is the best way to achieve this and could very well decrease global routing table size. Michael Dillon Voice: +1-604-546-8022 Memra Software Inc. Fax: +1-604-546-3049 http://www.memra.com E-mail: michael () memra com
Avi
Current thread:
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role, (continued)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Hank Nussbacher (Apr 03)
- RE: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Jim Fleming (Apr 03)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Paul Ferguson (Apr 03)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Michael Dillon (Apr 03)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Paul A Vixie (Apr 03)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Michael Dillon (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Craig A. Huegen (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Dalvenjah FoxFire (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Avi Freedman (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Michael Dillon (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Michael Dillon (Apr 03)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Avi Freedman (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Christopher E. Stefan (Apr 07)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role PIER (Apr 04)
- 192/8 survey (was Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role) Suzanne Woolf (Apr 05)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role PIER (Apr 04)
- Re: NANOG/IEPG/ISOC's current role Mike O'Dell (Apr 04)