a 2nd potential solution
Like I always say "There are no *new* ideas". It seems to me that large
providers going together on blocks like this could satisfy business
needs as well. I could multi-home like I want to if say UUnet and
Sprint went together on a /16 that they then parsed up among smaller
ISPs and businesses. I mean, then it would just be the two
announcements for the one /16.
Is there any way for the registries to encourage this? I can't think of
any, though I would think network providers might be interested for
purely a profit motive.
P.S. We currently use UUnet here, so I am going to contact them
directly about this. Any network providers who wish to discuss doing
this please contact me privately.
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> At 01:36 PM 7/18/97 -0400, Vince Wolodkin wrote:
> >I had a thought along the lines of an ISPAC but at a higher level. What
> >is large NSPs went together in groups of two or three and got routeable
> >space that they ISPACed. Then they could offer a package deal to ISPs.
> >Let's say for example that UUnet and Sprint go together and request a
> >block. They can now offer multi-homing services to smaller ISP's as a
> >package deal, one line to Sprint, and one to UUnet. This is good for
> >the big provider's and good for the little providers and good for the
> >address space.
> >It's also much easier for people like UUnet, Sprint, MCI etc to go
> >together and get routeable space than it is for ISPs.
> >Perhaps Priori could find another NSP it has synergy with, and get a
> >shared block with the other NSP. You would then corner the market on
> >small ISPs because the easiest way for them to multi-home would be to
> >"buy the package" from Priori. Maybe you could do it with one of the
> >P.S. If you do this and it is successful, I expect my check:-)
> Nice try Vince, but we've been architecting that in Toroto between
> the commercial guys and the net heads for about 4 years now
> and very soon the fruits of that labour should be evident.
> So, no check. How 'bout we buy you dinner next time we're in
> DC instead ? :-)