RE: Non-ISP companies multi-homing?

[Eric Germann <ekgermann () cctec com>]

At 11:22 AM 7/24/97 -0400, root () gannett com wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:
>
> > Interesting approach.  In general, the ISPs I know would be reluctant to
> > run iBGP with a customer, unless they had total control of all BGP
> > speakers.  If I understand you correctly, the enterprise would have to tag
> > its advertisements to the second ISP with the ASN of the first, since the
> > enterprise doesn't have its own.  Again, I think most ISPs would be
> > reluctant to give up this amount of control.
>
> I think most of the companies running redundant links now have their own 
> address space and ASN.  We got our primary address blocks back when a 
> company could still do that.  I think there's going to have to be some 
> way to address that with semi-portable AS' in the near future though, as 
> more criticality transitions to the Net.  

So how do you folks punch through the infamous /19 filters?  I've got a
couple of clients who would like to multihome, but can't get PI space cause
they can't justify 8192 addresses.  Not having "fully routable" PI space
negates the whole purpose of multihoming from their perspective.  Does
Gannett or Pointcast have >= 8K hosts exposed on their DMZ networks?

I'm beginning to think there is a market for a device which has 1 Ethernet
port and responds to any RANGE of addresses, so you can scam Internic into
thinking you have 100% utilization of your address space, right off the bat...

Eric