|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Verio Peering Question
This shows the inherent hypocrisy of Verio's position. They claim that they won't accept these routes from peers, as a way of contributing to the public good, and limiting routing table size. However, that goes right out the window, when a little cash is waved around. The real reason for Verio's position could easily be that it is an effort to force those who are announcing prefixes that they will not listen to from peers, to buy transit directly from Verio. I think Sprint should be applauded from dropping their antiquated routing policy. Verio should definitely be passed over when folks are making transit-buying decisions, as they implement a filter policy that is basically anti-social. Those who extol the virtues of aggressive filtering, also tend to be the same folks who denounce multihoming, other than by a select few, in the name of lofty concepts such as controlling routing table size. However, the empirical evidence of the last few years, when /24s have become essentially globally routable (excluding neo-luddite carriers such as Verio), prove the fallacy of this viewpoint. - Daniel Golding > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Craig Pierantozzi > Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2001 9:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Verio Peering Question > > > > * Thus spake Patrick W. Gilmore ([email protected]): > > [snip] > > > > Oh, one other point - Verio accepts smaller announcements from their > > customers - and propagates them. I guess Verio agrees that > other people > > can run networks with all the extra announcements, even if > Verio themselves > > cannot. > > The rationale stated in past threads is that Verio's customers > pay for this > service. Non-customers are not paying Verio for anything > therefore they do > not choose to accept the more specific announcements from other > providers. > > Other providers have not taken this stance as shown by the list of those > that accept more specifics from peers. > > cheers > -cp >
|