North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Verio Peering Question

  • From: Patrick W. Gilmore
  • Date: Thu Sep 27 19:34:07 2001

At 09:40 PM 9/27/2001 +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:

>> No other network seems to have a problem with the extra announcements.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> Verio cannot explain why these larger networks can accept small
>> announcements and still run a network as well (or better) than Verio, but
>> Verio insists networks should not accept small announcements.
>Many other networks filter, some to the same extent. Few
>post public policies.

Every network I know filters - on /24s and longer (and one did /25s last time I looked). No network I know filters to the extent Verio does.

And *every* network gives hints to their policy - they announce prefixes. Looking in a publicly available route server, I can see /24s from classical A space being accepted from peers in the announcements of the following networks (in no particular order):

* Sprint
* Genuity
* Concentric (2828 - 4908 does not appear to give transit)
* Above.Net
* Exodus
* L3
* Qwest
* AT&T (both AGNS & 7018)
* Teleglobe
* GC

There are other networks out there, but I think this proves that most networks of approximately Verio's size (and all of the networks larger than Verio, methinx) do not filter as Verio does.

>Few people are as vocal as Randy about
>it, and he's moved on from Verio. Given he's still vocal
>about it, and Verio still filter, either he's a very believable
>crank, or he has a point, and has been trying to educate you
>for free. You choose.

I am afraid you have forgotten many, many other possible answers to those two premises. For instance, Randy could be an un-believable crank, and Verio has just not gotten around to un-doing his previous policies? Telcos (especially Japanese telcos) move slowly.

As for education, I would like to thank Randy - and you - for all the education I can get. Lord knows I do not know it all (despite what I sound like sometimes :). I simply choose to disagree on this point. And I am not alone - notice the list of networks above.

Then again, perhaps every one of them is wrong, while Randy & Verio are right? (Of course, this begs the question why AT&T, where Randy works, and XO, where you work, do not filter as Verio does? Perhaps US telcos move slowly too? :)

>> One can make one's own judgement what this says about Verio's ability to
>> run a network.
>I'd be making the judgement once I'd looked at performance and
>reliability stats. I'd also, as a customer, be keen to look at
>pricing to the customer, and as an investor or customer interested
>in long term survival of a supplire, at Capex expended to achieve
>whatever service level was given. On what would you be basing
>your judgement?

Good point. Please note Verio's latest financial announcements. They may be owned by NTT, but losing > 3/4 of a billion dollars on less than half of that in revenue does not bode well, even for a company as big as NTT.

Also, please note the financial health of other networks which do not filter, e.g. UUNET. Or better yet, how about the financial health of a network who used to filter but does not any longer, e.g. Sprint.

Seems to me Verio should stop filtering.

As for performance, we can all argue about that forever. I would pick UUNET over Verio, but that's me. I'd ask for a vote, but it would only start an even bigger flame war. Let's just let the performance thing be decided by each person individually.

>I don't think anyone has ever claimed (Randy included)
>that filtering out long prefixes never hurts performance /to
>those long prefixes/. Just that the usage of those long
>prefixes is small, the effect is often small, and the NET
>effect (i.e. on performance to all prefixes) is often improved,
>AND the 'public good' effect, in terms of encouraging
>CIDR and discouraging disaggregation has benefits for
>the global routing table, for everybody, in terms of
>reduction of cost (nice statistical demonstration at
>last IETF Ptomaine session - please refer to 'belling
>the cat' problem).
>Are you going to present statistical data to the contrary?


I actually wrote a response to this. However, I doubt you would care. So how about this for a counter argument: You win. All those other network is completely clueless, and every network should filter.

Fortunately, I do not run a network any more, so everyone can dismiss me as a crack. (Although I still think it would solve the problem very quickly if everyone filtered *just* Verio. :)

>Alex Bligh


P.S. You never did address why Verio preaches one thing and practices another. Neither has Randy to my knowledge (other than to say "if you are dumb enough to take them" or something like that). Is hypocrisy an official policy at Verio?