nanog mailing list archives
Re: 20402 routing entries (renumbering)
From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg () ripe net>
Date: Sat, 16 Apr 1994 15:01:59 +0200
> John Curran <jcurran () nic near net> writes: > ... At some point > or another, the cost of route entry propagation will be identified and > some enterprising soul will turn a "problem" into a business opportunity > by actually recovering these costs seperately. Yes, it will be messy, > and providers will begin handling routing (not traffic) settlements, > but if the cost component of routing gets high enough, then it's quite > likely to emerge as a separate item. > > ... Will a fortune 500 company be concerned about the extra > [wild estimate] $250/month to keep their dozen distinct CIDR entries? > Perhaps not, they may even consider it a good investment compared to > renumbering when they change providers. Would the local bookstore > renumber both their hosts (when changing providers) in order to avoid > $20/month? Maybe. > ... RIGHT ON ! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Current thread:
- Re: 20402 routing entries (renumbering) Tim Streater (Apr 15)
- 20402 routing entries (renumbering) Tony Li (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries (renumbering) Hans-Werner Braun (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries (renumbering) Peter S. Ford (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries (renumbering) Hans-Werner Braun (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries (renumbering) John Curran (Apr 15)
- Re: 20402 routing entries (renumbering) Daniel Karrenberg (Apr 16)