nanog mailing list archives
Re: design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation
From: Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:33:15 -0700
On 24-Oct-2005, at 11:21, Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 12:53:12 CDT, John Dupuy said:In fact, this is technically feasible right now with IPv4. Does anyone knowof a pair of ISPs doing this?"technically feasible" and "business case reasonable" are two different things.Under what conditions does this sort of cooperation with a competitor make sense?
As a customer, I would prefer to multi-home between ISPs who rarely talk to each other rather than those who are in collusion. From a technical perspective I want the operator-induced failures in each ISP to be as independent as possible; from the business perspective I want them both to fight for my money.
Joe
Current thread:
- Re: What is multihoming was (design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation), (continued)
- Re: What is multihoming was (design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation) Pekka Savola (Oct 25)
- Re: design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation Andre Oppermann (Oct 21)
- Re: design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation Owen DeLong (Oct 21)
- Re: design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation Michael . Dillon (Oct 24)
- Re: design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation Owen DeLong (Oct 24)
- RE: design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation Gary E. Miller (Oct 21)
- Re: design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 24)
- Re: design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation Joe Maimon (Oct 24)
- Re: design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation Joe Abley (Oct 24)
