may be - but it shoudl be written in the RFC, not in the VERIO's policy. The global policy must be THE SAME over the global Internet.
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Travis Pugh wrote:
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 18:44:08 -0500 From: Travis Pugh <tdp@discombobulated.net> To: Alex P. Rudnev <alex@virgin.relcom.eu.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
I've been lurking and looking at this conversation too long ... my head is spinning. Alex says there are many reasons causing people to announce B nets with short prefixes, and he is entirely right. The primary one would be that a client, by some inexplicable reasoning, expects their Internet service to be up and running reliably at least 95% of the time.
The disturbing message I have been able to glean from this thread is
- If you need reliability, get a /19 - If you are a small customer, using only a /24 for connectivity (and
helping to slow depletion) you are not BIG enough to expect multi-path reliability into your network - If you are a big provider, not only do you not have to provide a consistent level of service to your customers, but you are free to block them (and anyone else from other providers) arbitrarily when they spend a good deal of money to augment your service with someone else's
The gist of the conversation, IMO, is that customers can't have reliability with one provider, but they will be blocked from having reliability
multiple providers if their addresses happen to be in the "wrong" space. Something's wrong with that.
Cheers.
Travis Eeeevillll consultant
----- Original Message ----- From: Alex P. Rudnev <alex@virgin.relcom.eu.net> To: Randy Bush <rbush@bainbridge.verio.net> Cc: <doug@safeport.com>; <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 5:08 PM Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
It should be your problem. You simply loss the part of connectivity...
The real world is more complex than you drawn below. There is many
reasons
causing people to announce class-B networks with the short prefixes.
On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Randy Bush wrote:
Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 13:00:17 -0800 From: Randy Bush <rbush@bainbridge.verio.net> To: doug@safeport.com Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
Apparently for their convenience Verio has decided what parts of
Internet I can get to.
verio does not accept from peers announcements of prefixes in classic b space longer than the allocations of the regional registries.
we believe our customers and the internet as a whole will be less inconvenienced by our not listening to sub-allocation prefixes than to have major portions of the network down as has happened in the past. some here may remember the 129/8 disaster which took significant portions of
Absolutely. A standard would give ground rules, and would be something to point to when you have to go to a client or customer and say "these are your options." Instead, we are looking at a routing system where some traffic will flow on some networks if it is a longer subnet of a class B address, and will not flow on some networks based on arbitrary filter decisions. Some kind of RFC based consistency would be great. Cheers. Travis ----- Original Message ----- From: Alex P. Rudnev <alex@virgin.relcom.eu.net> To: Travis Pugh <tdp@discombobulated.net> Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Sunday, December 05, 1999 2:56 AM Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop that: thus through the the
down for up to two days.
the routing databases are not great, and many routers can not handle ACLs big enough to allow a large to irr filter large peers. and some large
net peers
do not register routes.
so we and others filter at allocation boundaries and have for a long time. we assure you we do not do it without serious consideration or to torture nanog readers.
With no notification.
verio's policy has been constant and public.
randy
Aleksei Roudnev, (+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/
Aleksei Roudnev, (+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/