Re: small site multi-homing (related to: Small guys with BGP issues)

[Clue Store <cluestore () gmail com>]

Well you and the rest of these so called "dreamers" can help with the
purchase of my new routers that don't exist yet to support you wanting to
multi-home a /29 and have the rest of the Internet world hold all of these
said /29's in their tables. Most folks who get a /29's don't care how they
get to and from the internet, they just want to always be able to get there.
TE at that granular of a level is not needed. So in other words, you and the
rest of the world of these dreamers can keep dreaming, because I doubt any
sensible ISP would accept and pass along anyone announcing /29's .... and
then there's V6, which I won't even get started on. Most ISP's are having a
hard time holding 300k ipv4 routes as of today, and you want to de-aggregate
even farther??

Clue

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Mike <mike-nanog () tiedyenetworks com> wrote:

>   Small-site multi-homing is one of the great inequities of the Internet
> and one that can, and should, be solved. I envision an Internet of the
> future where anyone with any mixture of any type of network connections can
> achieve, automatically, provider independence and inbound/outbound load
> sharing across disparate links. Gone is the built in hostage situation of
> having to either use your provider assigned IP's (>%99 of internet connected
> sites today), or the quantum leap of being an AS with PI space (and the
> associated technical baggage to configure and manage that beast).  End users
> should have the power to dictate their own routing policies and not suffer
> thru 'damping', 'urpf', or other policies imposed on how or when their
> packets come and go. So if you want to use 2 dsl lines and a CDMA modem, or
> a satellite and a fiber, or 27 dial up modems and a T1, you should be able
> to do that and the network should work with you to deliver your packets no
> matter where 'you' connect or how.
>
>   What it's gonna take is new routing paradigms and new thinking about the
> role of providers and users and a lowering of the barriers between these two
> for more cooperation in the overall structure of the network. Just like
> classfull addressing giving way to cidr, I belive hierarchal routing will
> give way to truely dynamic routing where all participants have equal
> capabilities over their own domain with no one (or group) of 'providers'
> having any more or less influence on global reachability for any 'users' who
> choose to go their own way, and I expect that to be an easy (or even
> default) choice in the future.
>
>   You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day
> you'll join us, and the world will live as one.
>
>
>
>  What is the issue here, that your DSL provider won't speak BGP with you
> > > no matter how many times you've asked, so you're complaining to NANOG
> > > about it because you don't have the ability or authority to change
> > > providers? Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but the emails
> > > so far haven't been very clear and this isn't making a lot of sense.