North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
As a side note, the filtering policies would seem to attach more value to addresses in the old class C space, as it is feasible for a customer to multihome and get through filters with these addresses. Has anyone seen any amount of service provider selection based on which address space they would allocate from? Travis ----- Original Message ----- From: James Smith <[email protected]> To: Travis Pugh <[email protected]> Cc: Alex P. Rudnev <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 7:21 PM Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop > The unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of businesses that need > 99.99% reliability and uptime, but aren't big enough to get a /19. > > My previous company was a credit card processing gateway. If they went > down, their customers were screwed. But they hadn't even used a Class C, > so they weren't eligible for a /19 or /20 from ARIN. > > My point is that the current requirement that a network must have a large > chunck of IP space to be multi-homed is not ideal. According to the > status quo, while an e-commerce company such as a credit card processor > may be big in the business world and worth millions, but insignificant on > the Net and left vulnerable because it can't be multi-homed. > > > -- > James Smith, CCNA > Network/System Administrator > DXSTORM.COM > > http://www.dxstorm.com/ > > DXSTORM Inc. > 2140 Winston Park Drive, Suite 203 > Oakville, ON, CA L6H 5V5 > Tel: 905-829-3389 (email preferred) > Fax: 905-829-5692 > 1-877-DXSTORM (1-877-397-8676) > > On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Travis Pugh wrote: > > > > > I've been lurking and looking at this conversation too long ... my head is > > spinning. Alex says there are many reasons causing people to announce B > > nets with short prefixes, and he is entirely right. The primary one would > > be that a client, by some inexplicable reasoning, expects their Internet > > service to be up and running reliably at least 95% of the time. > > > > The disturbing message I have been able to glean from this thread is that: > > > > - If you need reliability, get a /19 > > - If you are a small customer, using only a /24 for connectivity (and thus > > helping to slow depletion) you are not BIG enough to expect multi-path > > reliability into your network > > - If you are a big provider, not only do you not have to provide a > > consistent level of service to your customers, but you are free to block > > them (and anyone else from other providers) arbitrarily when they spend a > > good deal of money to augment your service with someone else's > > > > The gist of the conversation, IMO, is that customers can't have reliability > > with one provider, but they will be blocked from having reliability through > > multiple providers if their addresses happen to be in the "wrong" space. > > Something's wrong with that. > > > > Cheers. > > > > Travis > > Eeeevillll consultant > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Alex P. Rudnev <[email protected]> > > To: Randy Bush <[email protected]> > > Cc: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 5:08 PM > > Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop > > > > > > > > > > > > > It should be your problem. You simply loss the part of connectivity... > > > > > > The real world is more complex than you drawn below. There is many reasons > > > causing people to announce class-B networks with the short prefixes. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Randy Bush wrote: > > > > > > > Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 13:00:17 -0800 > > > > From: Randy Bush <[email protected]> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Cc: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop > > > > > > > > > > > > > Apparently for their convenience Verio has decided what parts of the > > > > > Internet I can get to. > > > > > > > > verio does not accept from peers announcements of prefixes in classic b > > > > space longer than the allocations of the regional registries. > > > > > > > > we believe our customers and the internet as a whole will be less > > > > inconvenienced by our not listening to sub-allocation prefixes than to > > have > > > > major portions of the network down as has happened in the past. some > > here > > > > may remember the 129/8 disaster which took significant portions of the > > net > > > > down for up to two days. > > > > > > > > the routing databases are not great, and many routers can not handle > > ACLs > > > > big enough to allow a large to irr filter large peers. and some large > > peers > > > > do not register routes. > > > > > > > > so we and others filter at allocation boundaries and have for a long > > time. > > > > we assure you we do not do it without serious consideration or to > > torture > > > > nanog readers. > > > > > > > > > With no notification. > > > > > > > > verio's policy has been constant and public. > > > > > > > > randy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aleksei Roudnev, > > > (+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
|