BGP announcements and small providers

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
1

There's always the nice 'n' easy system of using 10/8 and NAT as a
provider, making renumbering about 5 minutes work.

Even taken to the extreme, it wouldn't take long to change your BGP
announcements / have your provider change their BGP announcements /
whatever.

Nameservers are a bit harder to renumber, but that's not too bad.

Wonder how long it'll be before ISPs rather than corporates start to
use NAT for most of their network.

Karl Denninger wrote :

->
-> You're right.
->
-> And as soon as the mainstream hardware we all sell to people, and that has
-> significant market penetration in the installed base, makes this reasonable
-> to do for a *large* operation, this will be reasonable.
->
-> However, as the state of IPV4 and its hardware sits right now, it is NOT
-> reasonable to do *other than on the boundaries of a customer's individual
-> decision*.
->
-> That is, if a PROVIDER changes upstream links, it is unreasonable to expect
-> their *customers* to renumber. To force that paradigm is to attempt to
-> tie an ISP to a given provider. The requirement to renumber comes out of th
-> e
-> blue, it is an unanticipated cost, and one which is neither under the
-> control of nor a result of the actions of the customer.
->
-> Better go talk to some attorneys before you do things that lead to this
-> result.
->
-> If a *customer* changes providers, they bear the costs of their actions.
-> If the operative cause of their renumbering is their decision to leave one
-> ISP and go to another, *they* are directly responsible for their own pain.
->
-> THAT is much more likely to pass muster.
->
-> --
-> --
-> Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
-> http://www.mcs.net/~karl | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
-> | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
-> Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.
-> net/
-> Fax: [+1 312 803-4929] | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Inte
-> rnal
->

I've had a wonderful time...
...but this wasn't it.

2

Nameservers are a bit harder to renumber, but that's not too bad.

When you have hundreds of virtual web sites?

Wonder how long it'll be before ISPs rather than corporates start to
use NAT for most of their network.

When our customers stop wanting to use applications that carry IP
addresses at the application layer. Until then, NAT is a no-go.

pbd

3

Well, that doesn't matter all that much, I just submitted change of
nameservers for 209 domains yesturday... Wrote a perl script that
invoked PGP in batchmode and signed them all and sent them off to the
internic, i got another one written that will check hostmasters mail
and erase them from the array when we get the confirm that it was done.
Note, that wasn't renumbering the nameserver, but switching the domain that
the nameserver was in. But unless I'm mistaken, the nameserver itself
is just a record that can be updated without hurting anything else?

4

<cut about shifting name severs..>

But unless I'm mistaken, the nameserver itself
is just a record that can be updated without hurting anything else?

yep - saved many hors of my life that did once :wink:

aid