On 10/29/08 5:16 AM, William Herrin allegedly wrote: > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:58 AM, Eliot Lear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> To put it another way, home and SMB networks really don't even have >> an option today to be multihomed (at least not at the network >> layer), > > Not correct. Anyone buying at least two T1s @ $600/mo or so each > qualifies for a /24 for multihoming from one of the ISPs and an AS# > from ARIN. Further, anyone with a legacy IP address block (pre-1997) > is also able to announce a block, even with just one T1.
But the main point is whether small networks are managed differently enough that they could be treated differently. Multihoming is one factor, renumbering is another, and there are certainly others. Regardless of where you draw the line, the architectural point is that some edge sites of the Internet can be treated as appendages on their upstream providers, while others must be treated as independent entities. No? > My point is: if we solve the problem for small offices without > disrupting or removing BGP, or in some cases installing it! > we'll at least minimally have an > intermediate solution where BGP growth can be constrained by moving > the dividing line between what size network is large enough to > announce into BGP and what has to use the new solution. What the architecture should do is _allow_ that line to be moved, flexibly. Scott _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
