Re: In search of uplink vendor

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:01:58AM -0500, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jan 2012, Paul Kaminsky wrote:
>
> > We are at a stage where we need an all-out uplink vendor to fuel our 
> > business endeavor. The bells and whistles we need are:
> >
> > 1. 1 Gbps link with complete block of UDP/ICMP protocol
> > 2. BGP session with our AS
> > 3. Ability to blackhole (no route to host) by /32 prefix
> > 4. Presence in Equinix SV1 or SV5 (San Jose) DC's - this is not mandatory, 
> > we're open for suggestions
> >
> > If you feel your company measures up or is a cut above the rest, please 
> > get in touch with us to discuss the specific details.
>
> Note: I am not a vendor.
>
> One question:
> 1. Not knowing anything about your business, is there a specific reason 
> that you want "a complete block of UDP/ICMP protocol"?  That can be 
> problematic with IPv4, and downright foolish with IPv6.
>
> jms

        perhaps we are walking around w/ incomplete notions of what 
        constitutes a "complete block of UDP/ICMP protocol"...

        for me, literally,this makes no sense whatsoever.  ratcheting back
        on my literal filter (be liberal in what you accept) I beleive
        what he is asking for is a contigious block of IP addresses 
        for use in his network.  am also making the inference that he is
        only looking for IPv4 (no route to host by /32 prefix).

        so the only remaining, burning question is - what size block?

        a /33?  a /31?  maybe a /28? or a /22?  a /19?  

        (the /33 is right out... filtering on /32 would block both hosts!)

        I think its quite reasonable to expect a contigious block of addresses,
        regardless of address family. Not at all "downright foolish". 
         It is rare to see someone -not- get a contigious block.  

        ymmv of course.
        
/bill