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
may be - but it shoudl be written in the RFC, not in the VERIO's policy. The global policy must be THE SAME over the global Internet. On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Travis Pugh wrote: > Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:44:08 -0500 > From: Travis Pugh <[email protected]> > To: Alex P. Rudnev <[email protected]> > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop > > 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/ > > > > > > Aleksei Roudnev, (+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/
|