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 12:31:53PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote: > Then again, I can see from below that you obviously do not understand the > implications of this filtering policy. -snip- > Because of my small need for IP space, none of the IP registries will give > me my own /20 (or whatever). However, ARIN will not complain if one of my > upstreams SWIPs a /24 to me, even if I do not require an entire /24. I > announce that /24 to both my upstreams. > > If that /24 is filtered by all backbones, my second connection to the > Internet is essentially useless, a waste of money. -snip- > Do you now understand why "filtering == forcing small providers / > businesses to single home"? If anything was not clear, please contact me > off list and I shall try to explain further. Actually, it seems to me that your argument is that ARIN/RIPE/APNIC policy prevents people from multihoming. In the past, when new allocations have been opened or allocation policy has been redefined (say, from /19 to /20), Verio's filters have changed accordingly. If the regional registry's policy is the problem, fix that policy, and I think that you'd find Verio's filters would also change. Randy has stated on more than one occaision (back when he worked for Verio) that he would listen to loose /24's within the proper ranges if the registrys would develop a workable microallocation policy. Blaming Verio for the RIR's allocation policy simply does not make sense. --msa
|