On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Randy Bush wrote:
I agree that there is no 'right' to have a route in someone else's router. Different providers, different policies etc. etc. However, if I choose to filter on allocation boundaries but advertise prefixes to peers that I myself would filter based on my own policy is that considered hypocritical? Bad form? Acceptable?
normal business. you're doing that for which folk PAY you.
Curious that this entire discussion is justified by delivering what your customers pay you for, when what is proposed couldn't be further from that. If this is about what customers pay for, then we would be disussing how to accommodate, and even encourage effective multi-homing at a more granular level. Customers pay for the network to work end-to-end. More choices mean better performance, more reliability. The entire premise for this discussion goes directly against that. Let me guess, this /is/ for the good of the users, because if we don't do it the world will blow up with too many routes. Uh huh. And everyone is turning down customers who want to multi-home a /24. I pay my network providers to reach all those multi-homed /24's quickly and reliably. Filtering devalues your network, I buy from your non-filtering competitor instead. BTW, your sales people (if you are a major carrier) are salivating over my RFP. Your CEO sweats bullets over next quarter's numbers. Filtering /24's doesn't seem important to them. Where did the 'you don't pay me, so you can't use my route table' argument come from? A multi-organizational, ubiquitous, globally-reachable, resilient network presumes that the majority of routes in my router are /not/ my customers, and /that's/ why the network is valuable. I'm not saying there isn't a problem, or that we shouldn't be doing anything about it. But it's one thing to talk about the problem (technology needs to improve to allow individuals and small companies to have better reliability), and quite another for networks to be hypocritically preaching/enforcing the 'pay or be filtered' principle while violating the principle themselves. Pete.