North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: Verio Peering Question

  • From: Daniel Golding
  • Date: Fri Sep 28 17:08:37 2001


You seem to shift the burden of deciding filter policies from providers to
RIRs. The problem with this is that the RIR's specifically disavow
responsibility for setting filter policies, and generally request that ISPs
do not use their allocation policies as filter policies. The RIR's
motivations are several - to control routing table size is only one of them.
The most important is the desire to conserve IP address space, which
presupposes the idea of requiring significant justification.

While I certainly support the idea of usable micro allocations, and have
voiced my support on various ARIN mailing lists for it, it should be
remembered that the same folks who generally espouse restrictive filtering
policies are also those who voice the greatest opposition to a realistic
micro allocation policy. Their argument normally underscores the somewhat
facetious issue of routing table size.

Patrick should be applauded for challenging the heavy-handed orthodoxy of
those who support restrictive filtering policies. The vast majority of
network and network operators have "voted with their feet" in this regard.
Ad hominem attacks against individuals because they have worked for carriers
that have not prospered in this economy are suspect, as they tend to tar
almost anyone who has had the intestinal fortitude to strike out on one's
own and design a network.

- Daniel Golding

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of
> Majdi S. Abbas
> Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 12:57 PM
> To: Patrick W. Gilmore
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: 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