RE: Long Prefix Redundancy (Was: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop)The pressure is on to use co-location service only from Big Players. Indeed, remember the big fight over Exodus peering arrangements? Someone (GTE?) decided that Exodus should pay them for transit and pulled peering. since no other large network pulled such stunt the result was that GTE customers were inconvenienced more than Exodus customers. The message is loud and clear. If you want your server farm to have good access, put it in a good collocation facility run by a very large provider who has good redundancy not only of their network as a whole but of their colo facility (a co-lo facility with only one WAN circuit does not have good redundancy even if the LAN is exceedingly good and fault-tolerant etc.). Dana ----- Original Message ----- From: Derrick Bennett To: 'nanog@merit.edu' Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 8:09 PM Subject: RE: Long Prefix Redundancy (Was: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop) Since we are all here at this point I would like to ask some questions on what should be done for the small companies. I have setup several /24's with various ISP's and have gotten them multi-homed with secondary ISP's, setup BGP and overall things work relatively well. Now I have always been able to go to some of the route servers and looking glass sites and see my annoucements making it to several providers. But I have no way of knowing that every ISP is accepting these routes and I have always beleived that they weren't anyway. Now through all this many people have asked the same question I am asking. Companies that are being responsible and only occuping a single class C still need redundancy and to me this is what BGP was meant to do. What does the nanog community in general think should be done to help this growing group of customers ? I never remember reading a FAQ anywhere that said only large networks should get the redundancy features that have been built into the Net. And to answer the other point many of my customers would not mind paying a fee to make their routes known. I would rather pay for proper routing then pay for a /19 and waste space. Derrick
-----Original Message----- From: James Smith [mailto:jsmith@dxstorm.com] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 4:21 PM To: Travis Pugh Cc: Alex P. Rudnev; nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
The unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of businesses that need 99.99% reliability and uptime, but aren't big enough to get a /19.
My previous company was a credit card processing gateway. If they went down, their customers were screwed. But they hadn't even used a Class C, so they weren't eligible for a /19 or /20 from ARIN.
My point is that the current requirement that a network must have a large chunck of IP space to be multi-homed is not ideal. According to the status quo, while an e-commerce company such as a credit card processor may be big in the business world and worth millions, but insignificant on the Net and left vulnerable because it can't be multi-homed.
-- James Smith, CCNA Network/System Administrator DXSTORM.COM
DXSTORM Inc. 2140 Winston Park Drive, Suite 203 Oakville, ON, CA L6H 5V5 Tel: 905-829-3389 (email preferred) Fax: 905-829-5692 1-877-DXSTORM (1-877-397-8676)
On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Travis Pugh wrote:
I've been lurking and looking at this conversation too long
spinning. Alex says there are many reasons causing people to announce B nets with short prefixes, and he is entirely right. The
be that a client, by some inexplicable reasoning, expects
service to be up and running reliably at least 95% of the time.
The disturbing message I have been able to glean from this
... my head is primary one would their Internet thread is that:
- If you need reliability, get a /19 - If you are a small customer, using only a /24 for
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 through 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 the Internet I can get to.
verio does not accept from peers announcements of
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
have
major portions of the network down as has happened in
here
may remember the 129/8 disaster which took significant
connectivity (and thus prefixes in classic b prefixes than to the past. some portions of 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/