nanog mailing list archives
RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex () virgin relcom eu net>
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 1999 01:22:17 +0300 (MSK)
The memory for the routing tables was a deal just about 2 years ago; this became easier to maintain big tables today (when routers can be easily upgraded to 256 MB RAM). And from my point of view, the address space conservation is just much more important than preventing extra /19 or /20 routes to exist in the global Internet. You surely use plenty of money to improve throughput, not the routing tables limits. Alex. On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:19:14 -0800 From: Roeland M.J. Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com> To: 'Randy Bush' <randy () psg com>, 'Tony Li' <tony1 () home net> Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop That depends. Many operators of /24s would be happy to pay, within reason. This would provide plenty of cash to upgrade routers. Right now I am looking at ~$1000/Gbps from various colo providers, for a site that is expected to go over 1Tbps (Yes, that's a Tera-bit per second), in 18 months. The site, with Dev/QA/Stage/Production, could easily burn a /24, but no more than that. (One of our requirements is a provider with LOTS of dark-fiber and cold-potato routing, as a result.) We are looking into distributing the load geographically, which also covers Big-D disasters. Now we have a multi-homeing problem unless we use the same provider in both locations. Business-wise, this is not acceptable, to be locked-in, in this way. Considering the amount of money involved, do you still doubt that my client would be willing to pay reasonable fees, to announce their /24? Don't you think that the presence of this cash would cover the check? We've already established that the only technical issue is the capital expense ($cash$) required to upgrade backbone routers.-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of Randy Bush Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 5:20 AM To: Tony Li Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to dropWouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for annoucements and quit this arbitrary filtering?thanks geoff. :-) and how would charging for announcements have ameliorated the 129/8 disaster? ahhh, when they tried to announce those 50k /24s, the check would have bounced! randy
Aleksei Roudnev, (+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/
Current thread:
- RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop, (continued)
- RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop jlewis (Dec 03)
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop bmanning (Dec 03)
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop jlewis (Dec 03)
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop bmanning (Dec 04)
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop Austin Schutz (Dec 04)
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop Randy Bush (Dec 03)
- Message not available
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop Howard C. Berkowitz (Dec 03)
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop Deepak Jain (Dec 03)
- RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop Roeland M.J. Meyer (Dec 03)
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop Jeremy Porter (Dec 03)
- RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop Alex P. Rudnev (Dec 04)
- RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop Daniel Golding (Dec 04)
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop Tony Li (Dec 03)
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop Randy Bush (Dec 04)
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop Travis Pugh (Dec 04)
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop James Smith (Dec 04)
- Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop Travis Pugh (Dec 04)