NSP ... New Information

Eric Germann enlightens us with ...

Isn't the biggest problem with PI space having a big enough network so
Sprint and everyone else doesn't filter you? Specifically a /19 or larger
(~ 8000 addresses)? Can you justify to them 32 Class C's so you can be
seen everywhere? I know of another startup provider who had this problem.
Its a chicken and egg scenario. They needed to sell connectivity, but
couldn't reach portions of the net, specifically Sprint. Kind of kills
your marketing when you can't get to the entire 'Net. How do others deal
with this scenario in a startup environment, or even an established
environment where you can't justify 8000 addresses yet?

In effect Sprint is encouraging the waste of IP space. I'm putting together
a proposal now for a web farm type of facility for a group of investors and
a block of /19 is way more than is needed. But the plan is going to have at
least 4 points of multi-homing to diverse backbone providers, so a fully
announceable block is essential.

Are Sprint and InterNIC butting heads over this? If not, does anyone here
think they should be?

I'm assuming the reason Sprint does this is to reduce the total number of
routes they have to carry. What are the other backbones doing? How well
is everyone else doing in terms of building up the capacity to carry more
and more routes? What alternative plans are coming along, before and after
IPv6 (which would certainly unleash the floodgates on routes if we are still
using BGP technology at IPv6 deployment)?

I've got one idea I'm mulling over that could help in the current situation.
Once it is a more mature idea, I might suggest it. In the mean time I just
want to read other thoughts, comments, ideas, and... uh... no... not flames.

I'd like to see them start allocating recovered space from 192/8 in
/22 or maybe /21 sizes.

It seems to me that Ron himself can order all these things over the pay
phone. I'll just have Kimba pick-up the stamps when they are ready.

--david

oops

Thats what you get for typing without your glasses on. :wink:

--david

I've got one idea I'm mulling over that could help in the current

situation.

Once it is a more mature idea, I might suggest it. In the mean time I just
want to read other thoughts, comments, ideas, and... uh... no... not

flames.

I'd like to see them start allocating recovered space from 192/8 in
/22 or maybe /21 sizes.

I enjoyed my first NANOG (10) and learned a great deal from several people.
It was a pleasure to meet Michael, Justin, Robert of priori.net and
several others, including Kim Hubbard of InterNIC and I am glad to see this
issue on the NANOG list.

Often, it is helpful to look at how other industries handle similar issues;
as a result of a suggestion by Wayne Shirley, chairman of the New Mexico
Public Utilities Commission, I looked into some federal documents for
guidance on the issue and found the following at
<http://www.ece.iit.edu/~power/taccess/rm95-8.000>:

         The focus of our proposal today is to facilitate competitive
         wholesale electric power markets. The key to competitive bulk
         power markets is opening up transmission services. Transmission
         is the vital link between sellers and buyers. To achieve the
         benefits of robust, competitive bulk power markets, all wholesale
         buyers and sellers must have equal access to the transmission
         grid. Otherwise, efficient trades cannot take place and
         ratepayers will bear unnecessary costs. Thus, market power
         through control of transmission is the single greatest impediment
         to competition. Unquestionably, this market power is still being
         used today, or can be used, discriminatorily to block
         competition.

The final codification may be FERC Order 888 or 18 CFR Part 388, which
apparently are not online save West Law.

What do NANOG people think about this issue?

Should InterNIC grant small ISPs (this one serves a rural area between
Dallas and Oklahoma City) fully routable and portable IP space?

Or should the denial of instruments necessary for competition be used to
force market consolidation?

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Regards,

Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500
Internet Texoma, Inc. <http://www.texoma.net> direct 903-870-0365
bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551
Member ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571

Should InterNIC grant small ISPs (this one serves a rural area between
Dallas and Oklahoma City) fully routable and portable IP space?

You are talking about a scarce resource. The InterNIC should allocate as
much space as can be justified for real use. We discussed this to death a
long time ago.

randy

Has the situation changed since a long time ago?

What scare resources, if any, should a rural ISP serving a rural area of
say, 250K people, be allocated?

Should the rural ISP be allowed the scarce resources to multi-home with
portable IP space and thus be allowed to offer diversity and redundancy to
customers?

Your thoughts and those of others are appreciated.

Regards,

Larry Vaden, founder and CEO help-desk 903-813-4500
Internet Texoma, Inc. <http://www.texoma.net> direct 903-870-0365
bringing the real Internet to rural Texomaland fax 903-868-8551
Member ISP/C, TISPA and USIPA pager 903-867-6571