[ppml] Legacy /24s

On 9/3/07 3:48 PM, "Paul Vixie" <paul at vix.com> wrote:

>> However, I think we are running fairly far afield here, point is, adding
>> routes to the global table is "expensive", which is why the community likes
>> to avoid it, where possible.
> 
> all human actions, according to von mises and others, have costs and benefits.
> for the action of "add one more route to the global table" the cost is borne
> by the community and the principle benefit comes to the actor.

Let's roll back the clock, I want to run full routes on my c1750!

I need all the "big ISPs" with their non-aggregated advertisements to
renumber into a single network that they announce in their single AS (not
multiple ASes, but SINGLE AS).  One route per slot and slot per org, no more
for all traffic they originate!

Bless the multi-homed nets.  If small-time vixienet is multi-homed, we have
to pay for the slot regardless if it's a /24 or a /20 and nobody needs to be
pounding sand.  If vixienet or myspace isn't multi-homed, then, I agree,
that it is an exception that needs to be eliminated for the purposes of "the
community."

Why is the elephant in the room, er this list, that while costs need to be
managed on all sides that there is a specific cost of doing business.  If
you want to be a carrier, then be a carrier.  If you can only afford to do
aggregation to a carrier, then be an aggregator.  As the requirements for
the routing hardware increase, the number of organizations able to carry
full routes will decrease.  (Notably if they're not able to budget and plan
for the growth.)  Where's the problem?

peter