|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Verio Peering Question
--On Tuesday, 02 October, 2001 6:33 PM -0400 Jeff Mcadams <[email protected]> wrote: I could *EASILY* renumber out of one of the prefixes that I have (a /24), in a heartbeat, but I have absolutely no incentive to do so Those who propose filtering a la Verio / Sprint(passim) suggest that your incentive to renumber is that certain other (not in the line of transit) networks will not accept these prefixes (or apply more stringent dampening on them), and hence give you inferior routing either permanently (filtering) or temporarilly (dampening), assuming you have a covering netblock. Of course if you have a swamp /24, the filtering argument doesn't apply, but the dampening one does. Aside: It's interesting that all the anti-filtering arguments are coming from those who are customers of Filterer's peers. We have heard that Filterer doesn't filter its own customers, but we haven't heard Filterer's BGP customers complaining (at least in this forum) that they are missing routes and hence have suboptimal connectivity to Filterer's peers' customers. As last 3 letters of NANOG indicate, we here should perhaps be interested in designing filtering policies which attract happy paying customers - so far few people have suggested an upstream with aggressive peer filtering is a worse upstream. (Ducks from torrent of mail) -- Alex Bligh Personal Capacity
|