North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: /24s run amuck

  • From: Patrick W.Gilmore
  • Date: Thu Jan 15 01:21:45 2004 
Hi Sean, long time no spar. :)

Going to Miami?  I'll buy you a drink.

--
TTFN,
patrick


On Jan 14, 2004, at 7:14 AM, Sean M.Doran wrote:

Unfortunately there has been a macroeconomic cost to the growth of background noise in the Internet -- and the noise is still there -- which has made the Internet as a whole more expensive and less widely available than it ought to be. However, there are much larger contributions of such waste outside the public Internet's routing system that dwarf the cost of the unnecessary demands on router power resulting from poor aggregation, poor hygiene, and poor stabilization practices.
Interestingly, the main reason I wanted to stop filtering on /18|/19|/20 filtering is precisely the thing you say is hurt by lack of filtering - availability.

A small ISP who wants two upstreams but did not have the customers to support a /19 back in the day was forced to deal with partial connectivity from one of their upstreams. Today anyone can have robust connectivity, no matter how small their network, even if they are not an ISP.

I believe this has helped the Internet, not hurt it. If everyone but major backbones were forced to be single homed, I doubt the 'Net would be where it is today.

[Guess I should start reading my multi6 folder if I don't wanna go through this again in a few years, huh? :-]


Almost everyone filters on /24s - they do not want to see /32s in the global table.
Why not?   I'm curious about why /24s are OK but /32s are not.
Because that is where the Internet decided the break point should be - small enough to not upset people handing them out, but large enough to not have too many in the global table. If ISPs were handing out /26s to people who wanted to multi-home, that is where the break point would be.

To be honest, I suspect it had more to do with inertia than a well-thought-out-plan. Lots of people had "Class Cs", so it just stuck. But the fact remains that anyone who wants to multi-home can get a /24, so the table only has to support /24s.


I suggest that if there is no reason other than a watered down version of the voodoo mentality you've accused me personally of having with respect to long prefixes -- i.e., if you think I'm right about the problem but too aggressive about the limit -- that there is a business opportunity still waiting to be exploited by someone enterprising.
Interesting way of putting it. Yes, I think some level of filtering needs to be done, and yes I think you were too aggressive. Neither of these are secrets to anyone who's been on the 'Net for a few years. But how we came to our decisions are very different.

Is there a business opportunity? Maybe. Personally I think the time has past. The Internet is a commodity, trying to put on unneeded expenses or restricting access only loses you customers and therefore money. But I could be wrong, try setting up your idea and prove me wrong by getting rich off it.


With respect to that, for my part I wish I could go back in time and complete the next phase of the filtering, viz. a web page which would accept a credit card number from anyone who wanted to have a particular prefix allowed through the access-list, for a small recurring fee.
The problem with your idea is it requires collusion. The only way to get it to work is to guarantee that everyone does it, no one breaks ranks. Otherwise when you set up your web page, everyone else says "we'll do it for free", and then you're out of biz. :)

--
TTFN,
patrick