North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Verio Peering Question

  • From: Steve Gibbard
  • Date: Fri Sep 28 14:42:26 2001

Perhaps we need to step back for a bit and consider the reasons for
inter-provider routing, which does indeed have a purpose other than
sparking flame wars on NANOG.

For any connection established across the Internet, there are presumably
two parties to whom that connection is important (ignoring the obvious
counter-examples of spam and the like).  In general, each end of the
connection is paying somebody (or negotiating peering, or whatever), to
let them connect to everybody else.  The provider that they're paying then
has to make some decisions about how they want to provide that service,
whether it's to find the fastest or most direct path possible, to provide
the service cheaply, to provide the service reliably, to provide the
service in some way that hurts their competitors, or some combination of
the above.  It is in turn up to the customer whether they want to do
business with a provider who operates the way their provider does.

In Verio's case, they've apparrently decided that there are advantages to
a small routing table, which for them outweigh the advantage of learning
the potentially better paths they would get from a less stringent
filtering policy.  I'm sure we can all endlessly debate whether their
reasons for making that decision are good enough, but since those directly
affected by it are Verio customers, and I'm not a Verio customer any more,
I'm not that interested in worrying about it.

Other networks may make different engineering decisions, including
deciding that the cost of having a bigger routing table is worth it in
order to be able to use more optimal paths.  They may decide that offering
their customers the best possible path to a destination is something worth
doing, even if the network their customer's destination connects to is
behind a provider who doesn't feel the same way.  As such, an ISP may
understand that Verio won't listen to any /24s it advertises in non-swamp
space, recognize there's not much they can do about that, but still want
to see any routing informaion (including non-swamp /24s) Verio can give
them that would help them send data quickly to Verio customers.

I really don't see Verio being hypocritical here.  Instead, I see Verio
making a decision about what they want in their own routing table, but
offering routes to other providers in case those other providers want to
make a different decision.  Those other providers are welcome to filter or
accept those routes as they see fit.  This seems like a simple case of
Verio not forcing its policies on anybody else.


On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:

> At 09:57 AM 9/28/2001 -0700, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
>  >	Blaming Verio for the RIR's allocation policy simply does not make
>  >sense.
> Allow me to rephrase this slightly: Blaming the RIRs for Verio's filtering 
> policy simply does not make sense.
> There is no reason for the RIRs to change.  The system works, and works 
> reasonably well today.  Verio's policy, if applied to Verio by Verio's 
> peers, would not work.  (At least not from the POV of some multi-homed 
> Verio downstreams.)
> Also, if Verio would change their filters if the RIRs changed, then all the 
> arguments about the Internet collapsing are inconsistent.  (Unless 
> "workable microallocation policy" means eliminating most of the people who 
> currently have /24s.)
> You have already stated publicly you do not understand the implications of 
> filtering.  Perhaps you should stop trying to defend that which you do not 
> comprehend?
>  >	--msa
> --
> patrick

Steve Gibbard				[email protected]