North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Upstreams blocking /24s? (was Re: How Not to Multihome)

  • From: David Conrad
  • Date: Mon Oct 08 22:31:55 2007


On Oct 8, 2007, at 6:28 PM, Justin M. Streiner wrote:
On Mon, 8 Oct 2007, Jon Lewis wrote:
adopted /24 as the cutoff point. If you make the cutoff point smaller,
what is the new point... /26? /32?

Presumably the fear is there being no limitation, that is, /32.

Anything longer than /24 is unlikely to propogate far on the internet.

Pedantically speaking, there ain't no such thing as "the internet". There are a series of interconnected private IP based networks, each with their own policy about what they'll transmit and accept in terms of routing updates. What one ISP accepts and propagates is not necessarily what the next ISP accepts and propagates. What I'm trying to understand is whether there is a sufficient critical mass to define a consensus maximal prefix among those interconnected networks.

You can all check your filters to see. I just checked mine, and neither Level3 nor Time Warner has tried to send me anything longer than /24 in recent history. If they did, it'd show up as hits on a distribute-list deny rule.

I realize that - I was posing a rhetorical question to the previous poster :)

The argument, as I understand it (and those who argue this direction feel free to correct me if I misstate), is that as the IPv4 free pool exhausts, there will be a natural pressure to increase address utilization efficiency. This will likely mean longer prefixes will begin to be put (back) into use, either from assignments and allocations that were "rediscovered" or from unused portions of shorter prefixes. Customers will approach ISPs to get these long prefixes routed, shopping through ISPs until they find one that will accept their money and propagate the long prefix.

Now, of course announcing a route doesn't mean anyone will accept it, but as I understand the theory, larger ISPs will agree to accept and propagate longer prefixes from other larger ISPs if those other ISPs will be willing to accept and propagate transmitted long prefixes ("scratch my back and I'll scratch yours"), particularly if this encourages the smaller ISPs to 'look for other employment opportunities' when they can't afford the router upgrades.

Personally, I fully expect the first part to happen. Where I'm having trouble is the second part (the accepting longer prefixes part). However, a few prominent members of the Internet operations community whom I respect have argued strongly that this is going to happen. I thought I'd ask around to see what other folk think...

If people feel uncomfortable publicly stating their filter policy is, I'd be happy to summarize responses sent to me directly, keeping individual responses confidential.