nanog mailing list archives
RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys.
From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming () unety net>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 1996 12:50:14 -0600
On Friday, April 05, 1996 3:58 AM, Tim Salo[SMTP:salo () msc edu] wrote: @> From: Avi Freedman <freedman () netaxs com> @> Subject: Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. <snip> @ @We hear a lot about dual-homed ISPs and ISPs who want to change their @upstream providers. It would be very interesting to have some @quantitative information about the size of these classes. @ @(Or, are issues related to dual-homed ISPs and changes in upstream @providers more theoretical than real?) @ @-tjs @ There is another very serious business reality when it comes to "upstream providers". The InterNIC and the other "network engineering" bodies may not have taken this into account. The story goes like this... ISP X is bidding on an important account with Company Y...there might be 16 other companies bidding for the same account...ISP X has a strong relationship with one or more large "upstream providers" that also happen to sell long distance telephone service... It might happen that Company Y "dislikes" the upstream provider because of a variety of reasons...maybe Company Y is owned by another similar company... maybe a competitor of the upstream provider employs several thousand people in the area and the upstream provider is not welcome in the area...maybe the upstream provider filed suit against a local university over an operating system and the people have never forgotten this... ...the point is that the InterNIC can not have a full understanding of the local and global politics that can determine which way these decisions are made... By "coaxing" ISPs to their upstream providers and not providing them with portable globally routable IP addresses, the InterNIC could be setting an ISP up for failure...the InterNIC and IANA are not taking into account the business realities of the world... ...furthermore, by providing "selected" ISPs with portable, and globally routable IP addresses, the InterNIC and IANA are making it easier for some companies to "win" bids like the one described above...ISP X may not have a chance because they can not offer the same "independence" from a particular upstream provider that might be desired by Company Y...because of historical reasons which are not discussed... -- Jim Fleming UNETY Systems, Inc. Naperville, IL 60563 e-mail: JimFleming () unety net
Current thread:
- Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys., (continued)
- Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Christian Nielsen (Apr 05)
- Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Paul A Vixie (Apr 04)
- Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Marc E. Hidalgo (Apr 05)
- RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Jim Fleming (Apr 05)
- RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Michael Dillon (Apr 05)
- RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Tim Salo (Apr 05)
- Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Avi Freedman (Apr 05)
- RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Michael Dillon (Apr 05)
- Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Tim Salo (Apr 05)
- RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Jim Fleming (Apr 05)
- RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Jim Fleming (Apr 05)
- Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Justin W. Newton (Apr 05)
- Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Christopher E. Stefan (Apr 07)
- RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Jim Fleming (Apr 05)
- RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Jim Fleming (Apr 05)
- RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Kent W. England (Apr 05)
- Re: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Curtis Villamizar (Apr 08)
- RE: CIDR,Sprint and the Big Guys. Tim Salo (Apr 05)