Re: BGP announcements and small providers

[Paul Ferguson <pferguso () cisco com>]

This is not a practical expectation. If done on a wide-scale basis,
the whole concept of route aggregation is for naught. I would
suggest tyhat you read:

 RFC2008, "Implications of Various Address Allocation Policies
 for Internet Routing", http://www.internic.net/rfc/rfc2008.txt

- paul

At 12:08 PM 2/26/97 +0000, Sean Rolinson wrote:

> Agreed.
>
> And it is my opinion that upstream providers should allow (or be 
> required) portability of assigned IP addresses.  Naturally, there are 
> some logistics that need to be dealt with, but if someone is BGP 
> peering, it pretty much boils down to an announcement change, 
> correct?  
>
> We, as a provider, would not mind paying some nominal fee (cheap!) 
> to our upstream provider for continued use of IP addresses after we 
> have terminated our service.  We have even considered getting the 
> smallest possible connection to that particular provider just to be 
> able to continually use their IP addresses.  This does not seem like 
> a very effective alternative for us or our upstream provider.    
>
> I am wondering what impact, if any, would requiring portability of 
> IP addresses under certain criteria (BGP peering, etc) have on the 
> Internet?  

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -