Michael Shields writes ...
If you have to filter someone, better to filter the small guys. You'll get fewer complaints than if you applied filters evenly.
So the complaint levels from the small guys are low enough that no one needs to worry about? OK, then let them complain all they want.
(Of course prefix length != connectivity value. But it's all we have.)
Then we need more. One way is to divide the IP space up into value tiers and bid for it. I'm sure NSI would be more than willing to do this :) -- Phil Howard KA9WGN +-------------------------------------------------------+ Linux Consultant | Linux installation, configuration, administration, | Milepost Services | monitoring, maintenance, and diagnostic services. | phil at milepost.com +-------------------------------------------------------+
At 10:38 AM 06/11/97 -0500, Phil Howard wrote:
One way is to divide the IP space up into value tiers and bid for it. I'm sure NSI would be more than willing to do this :)
Oh, no. Not this thread again. Somehow I get the feeling that the signal/noise ratio is about to taka a nosedive again. This issues has been hashed, and re-hashed, to death on various mailing lists, to include NANOG. I would suggest that if this is an issue that you wish to discuss/pursue, please take it to the PIARA mailing list: piara-request@apnic.net - paul
Michael Shields writes ...
If you have to filter someone, better to filter the small guys. You'll get fewer complaints than if you applied filters evenly.
So the complaint levels from the small guys are low enough that no one needs to worry about? OK, then let them complain all they want.
That's not what I meant. I meant that if you have to filter someone, *your customers* will complain less if you filter one of my /18s than if you filter MIT. My network is less important to you. You should spend less of your routers' resources maintaining connectivity to me and more maintaining connectivity to MIT. -- Shields, CrossLink.
participants (3)
-
Paul Ferguson -
Phil Howard -
shields＠crosslink.net