On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, mike wrote:
Shouldn't we here see how we get our act together, e.g. peering (why in this community are there people not peering, putting up 'rules' etc, when peering would just make everyone happy since the routing landscape is way simpler when there are lots of direct links), and of course, the same always: instead of creating unnecessary friction to put into the address allocation mechanism a measure to satisfy building up ISP/NSP businesses. I agree that there might some people need more restrictive routing, but restrictions must always be implemented in a way not to create injustice or even only extra problems.
Well, the prefix-filtering policies of the unnamed ISP you mention above is definitely a problem. However, I don't see it as a problem for me, because most ISP's are sensible enough to route that kind of traffic. I look at it as a problem for customers who use that unnamed ISP. Those customers should contact their providers and pressure them to get alternative links (or, in the case they are a direct customer of this unnamed ISP, change to another provider or obtain another link and become multi-homed). I think that right now, we shouldn't be too concerned with "CIDRize or DIE!". At this point, we should be helping other entities out--you're not FORCING them to renumber by making their networks non-routable within one organization--you're screwing your customers out of optimal connectivity to any particular site. The Internet has gotten too much away from the original purpose, to share information. It has gone to a vast commercial marketing symbol, where most companies really don't care about other entities--"Why should we help this group? They're customers of ISP X!" Now, if there's a sincere need to filter, say, because you still use AGS+'s with CSC/3's and 16 MB of RAM and your poor 1988-age equipment can't handle it, then fine... /cah