|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Verio Peering Question
On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 09:34:21AM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Plus, I maintain is hypocritical to argue that the Internet will collapse > if networks do not filter because aggregation is absolutely necessary, > while simultaneously accepting and passing longer announcements, whether > you are paid to do it or not. I do not see any hypocracy here, except perhaps your own. Verio's publicly stated position in the past has been: *) Verio will accept prefixes that meet a certain critera from the world, and they will accept and propagate the prefixes that their customers pay them to accept, however, they do not guarantee to their customers that OTHER people will accept those prefixes. Sure, they filter, but they invite THEIR peers to filter them, as well. I don't see any hypocracy in that. > And arguing that since everyone should filter it does not matter what you > announce is not an argument, it is a poor rationalization for hypocrisy. How can you rationalize something away when it does not exist? If Verio filtered their peers, but not their customers, and then demanded that everyone else accept all of their customer prefixes, that might be hypocritical. Since they don't, I don't see a problem here. > Listen, Dorian, you are a bright guy, and so is Randy, and so is Alex. But > clued or not, claiming something is "The Right Thing [tm]" does not make it so. Patrick, neither does claiming that such filtering /isn't/ "The Right Thing." And I find your prior argument that filtering is hurting the business of Verio as completely laughable -- clearly the open filtering policy is what made providers such as Priori and Onyx (USA) such a success. Someone with your, shall we say, `colorful' job history should be well aware that engineering policy has little to do with the success or failure of an ISP. > The Internet is where it is today because people pumped billions of dollars > into it. (Mostly to get pr0n. :) Many of these people require robust, > high performance connectivity to the Internet, which can best be guaranteed > through multiple connections to multiple providers. And they are willing > to pay for it. And the people who pumped billions of dollars into it are welcome to protect their assets, their network, and their customers as they choose. I do not yet have the ego required to claim that Verio's--or anyone's equipment is in the public domain. > Providers who ignore these requirements do so at their peril. Again, please either put a retread on this tired business argument or drop it, it's wearing a bit thin. > If you have a better way for people to get robust, high performance > connections, please submit it. I do not think filtering is bad because I > had a vision from ghod, I think it is bad because it does not let the > people paying for all these nice toys, and pushing all these 100s of Gbps, > do what they want to do. Do what they NEED to do if we are to continue > having an Internet. Doesn't it? Filtering does not prevent these people from doing what they wish. It simply establishes guidelines for how they do it. There is -no difference- between filtering on /25-and-longer and filtering as Verio does. The former modifies behavior by asking that people refrain from announcing anything smaller than a /24. The latter simply filters prefixes based on registry allocation policy. > You can argue that they want what is bad for them, and you may be > right. But I argue that requiring smaller companies and providers to have > a single connection will cause them more downtime and worse performance > than allowing the global table to fill with the longer announcements. How does this require that they single-home? I have no idea where this paragraph came from, but in the context of this post, I guess that's not a new feeling. --msa
|