TLA request 'for multihoming' (was: pTLA request SSVL)

[Joel Baker]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2002 at 08:40:17AM -0700, Michel Py wrote:
> > Pim van Pelt wrote:
> > If everyone with an AS will have a TLA then I would be very happy.
> > That would mean 64K prefixes in the DFZ ;-)
> 
> That is, before we get 32-bit AS numbers.
> 
> > From a technical point of view, there is no need for multihoming.
> > An ISP (look at the thread I started previously) can maintain
> > redundant uplinks to the Internet, multiple peering routers,
> > multiple transit carriers, etcetc, without the need for the
> > customer to have its prefix announced by more than one ISP.
> 
> This does not address:
> 1. The desire of the customer not to be held hostage by the ISP.
> 2. The performance requirement that some customers need to have direct
> transit from a large number of tier-1.

3. The number of large ISPs now filing Chapter 11 and turning off their
   networks.

For mid-size players, #3 is far more crucial than #2, and is really just a
subset of the causes for #1. Those mid-size players form a significant
chunk of the folks holding ASNs (since the big players aren't numerous,
and the small players have a hard time getting ASNs).

True, 1 ASN -> 1 pTLA works, for now. But, as pointed out above... those
64k numbers are, what, nearly half gone already? Somehow, making the IPv6
situation *worse*, by ensuring we run out faster than IPv4 addresses, does
not seem to be a winning proposition to me...

(Okay, to restrain the hyperbole, it might not be worse, but it certainly
doesn't seem to be a whole lot better, either).
-- 
***************************************************************************
Joel Baker                           System Administrator - lightbearer.com
lucifer@lightbearer.com              http://users.lightbearer.com/lucifer/