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 ... 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
As a side note, the filtering policies would seem to attach more value to addresses in the old class C space, as it is feasible for a customer to multihome and get through filters with these addresses. Has anyone seen any amount of service provider selection based on which address space they would allocate from? Travis ----- Original Message ----- From: James Smith <jsmith@dxstorm.com> To: Travis Pugh <tdp@discombobulated.net> Cc: Alex P. Rudnev <alex@virgin.relcom.eu.net>; <nanog@merit.edu> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 7:21 PM 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/