----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 8:09
PM
Subject: RE: Long Prefix Redundancy (Was:
Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop)
Since we are all here at this point I would like to ask
some questions on what should be done for the small companies. I have setup
several /24's with various ISP's and have gotten them multi-homed with
secondary ISP's, setup BGP and overall things work relatively well. Now I have
always been able to go to some of the route servers and looking glass sites
and see my annoucements making it to several providers. But I have no way of
knowing that every ISP is accepting these routes and I have always beleived
that they weren't anyway.
Now through all this many people have asked the same
question I am asking. Companies that are being responsible and only occuping a
single class C still need redundancy and to me this is what BGP was meant to
do. What does the nanog community in general think should be done to help this
growing group of customers ? I never remember reading a FAQ anywhere that said
only large networks should get the redundancy features that have been built
into the Net.
And to answer the other point many of my customers would not
mind paying a fee to make their routes known. I would rather pay for proper
routing then pay for a /19 and waste space.
Derrick
> -----Original Message-----
>
From: James Smith [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 4:21 PM
> To: Travis Pugh
> Cc: Alex P.
Rudnev; [email protected]
> 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/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>