nanog mailing list archives
Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd)
From: "Craig A. Huegen" <c-huegen () quad quadrunner com>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 1996 15:37:09 -0800 (PST)
On Sun, 11 Feb 1996, William Allen Simpson wrote:
From: Robert Du Gaue <rdugaue () calweb com>How the hell can I be a successful ISP when first, I probably can not justify 64 blocks (and if I do Sprint may change it to 128 anyways!)Let's think about this for a moment. How do you define "successful"?
It's a Catch-22. To provide the multi-homed, reliable services that many successful providers offer their customers, you need your own IP space. If the InterNIC isn't handing out blocks of routable size, you can't exactly have the most flexibility with your links.
If you mean, you already have lots of customers signed up before you ask for your first block, then of course you won't have any problem justifying 64 or more C's. And you will be able to afford to run your own continental links to the various NAPs.
A good point, but I, as a customer, am looking for a provider which is stable already; I'm not going to sign up to a service which says "we'll become multi-homed and fully accessible just as soon as we get X customers". I've seen others sign up for services which promise this--you find they go down quickly because they tend to not meet the X customer line.
I do not see how having no customers signed up qualifies as successful.
You have to offer services that people want, with good quality, before you can expect many customers to sign up. If you need X customers before you can provide those services, then you end up in the Catch-22 loop again.
On the other hand, are you saying you are "successful", but you are not running your own continental network? Why then, you must be connected to "one of the MAJOR" providers, correct? It only takes one. You get your addresses from them, not from the global pool.
Not every ISP has the investment capital to immediately run high-speed links to every NAP in the nation. But, that aside, are your customers going to use your service if they know that the Y% of people on the net using SprintLink are going to be unable to reach your network? /cah
Current thread:
- Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd) Robert Du Gaue (Feb 09)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd) William Allen Simpson (Feb 11)
- Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd) Craig A. Huegen (Feb 11)
- Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd) William Allen Simpson (Feb 11)
- Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd) Robert Du Gaue (Feb 11)
- Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd) mike (Feb 12)
- Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd) Paul Ferguson (Feb 12)
- Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd) Jonathan Heiliger (Feb 12)
- Re: [NIC-960209.1757] Routing Problem (fwd) Alan B. Clegg (Feb 15)
- larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Carl Payne (Feb 15)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Alan B. Clegg (Feb 15)
- Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... Carl Payne (Feb 15)
- Low quality ISPs (was Re: larger space was: Re: [NIC-.... ) Curtis Villamizar (Feb 16)