pagans@texoma.net principle #3

Randy and all,

Randy Bush wrote:
> 
> > my understanding is that I need <=205 space if I want to route (for the
> > purpose of reliable multi-homing), say, blocks of /22 (ie <=19 and >=24).
> 
> Truth is, I am not sure.  Sprint is not alone in filtering, and filtering
> policies are not public.  My memory is a safe border is nearer 204.  But
> don't trust me on that one.

  Yes, it is a real shame that filtering policies are not standerdized
as part of the governace situation.  They should be IMHO.  But that is
another story all together, or should I say THREAD? >;)  Well, anyway,
wherever the border is with spicific carriers, there needs to be some
guidlines on setting of these policies.
> 
> > I just feel a bit like a klinker putting them in 208 with potential
> > unnecessary unreachabilities when 1 upstream dies *and* expecting
> > them to renumber in probably less than 4-5 months.
> 
> Well, a set of customers is renumbering out of an old upstream's 205/20
> now.  One helps them, phases it, ...  It's just life.

  It is also not necessary if planning and good policies are in place,
and inforced.  I know, I have been there and done that.
> 
> My experience, for what it's worth, is that this is a minor part of what
> it takes in the ISP business.  And it is soooo much easier and much more
> deadly to blow the big ones (cash, management, sales, tech clue, ...),
> especially these days.

  Good point.  I would make a proviso here however.  That being that
if there are to be good policies that could severly limit renumbering
in MOST cases, than it benifits everyone.
> 
> randy

Regards,
-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com