North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: BGP announcements and small providers
- From: Michael Dillon
- Date: Wed Feb 26 14:24:11 1997
On Wed, 26 Feb 1997, Sean Rolinson wrote:
> And it is my opinion that upstream providers should allow (or be
> required) portability of assigned IP addresses.
Look at your contract with your upstream provider. Do you like what it
says? Start negotiating...
> We, as a provider, would not mind paying some nominal fee (cheap!)
> to our upstream provider for continued use of IP addresses after we
> have terminated our service.
Now you're getting the idea. Only one problem, you need to tell this to
your upstream provider, not us. We can't negotiate your contract for you.
> I am wondering what impact, if any, would requiring portability of
> IP addresses under certain criteria (BGP peering, etc) have on the
Require? Just who is going to "require" this? Who has the ability to
enforce a "requirement".
The best you can do is to work out some sort of consensus in the PAGAN
group and then hope that most people will accept that consensus and
implement it. This is generally how international trade negotiations
are handled and PAGAN is really no different except that in the Internet
world these negotiations are done with all the bureaucracy stripped away.
Send a subscribe message to firstname.lastname@example.org and hunt around
ftp.apnic.net for the archive of past PAGAN/IRE deliberations.
Michael Dillon - Internet & ISP Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-250-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: email@example.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -