LET'S JUST GO AROUND
On Thu, 06 Feb 1997 17:37:44 +0200, Alan Barrett said:
> Both small and big providers have to justify their address space
> requirements to the registry. Both small and big providers have to either
> pay for others to carry their routes, or persuade others that their routes
> should be carried for no charge.
> So, in what way are small businesses being unfairly treated?
The basic problem is that the "general guidelines" in RFC2050 say that
you should have 25% *IMMEDIATE* use of an allocation - you don't get
one until you will be at least 1/4 full.. So for a /19, you can be
denied getting it until you have 2048 addresses *IN USE*. And this is
*after* you've already started doing DHCP and all for those PC's and
Macs that subscribe to your ISP.
So it's possible that you don't get a prefix big enough to really
multihome until you have so many subscribers that you have 2K of them
connected *AT ONE TIME*. If you assume that the average subscriber is
connected 2 hours a day, and mostly within a 12-hour "prime time",
this means you need close to 12-15K or more subscribers to get 2K on
at one time so you can get your /19.
Now - try to get to 15K subscribers *without* multihoming. Remember
that if you're only single-homed, you're right off the bat less
reliable than a multi-homed (the whole point is redundancy). This
will cost you market share.
We're not talking about "mom and pop" ISPs getting cut out here.
We're talking about ISPs that have 15K customers being cut out, to the
benefit of those that are already 10X bigger than that. Hmm.. 15K
customers, at $20/mo a pop, that's about $3.6M/year cash flow.
And still not big enough to qualify for effective multihoming.
That's the problem.
Computer Systems Engineer
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 284 bytes
Desc: not available