In the referenced message, Stephen Sprunk said:
Thus spake "Stephen Griffin" <stephen.griffin@rcn.com>
These companies, conversely, don't care about the costs that _every other BGP speaker in the default-free zone_ has to incur as a direct result of their actions. Who is expected to bear the cost, the one or the many?
There is a cost associated with each AS connecting to the Net; if you want your customers to have access to every AS, you will accept all _reasonable_ advertisements. One prefix per AS is certainly more reasonable than common practice -- just look at The Cidr Report.
Again, what is reasonable? What makes a /32 less reasonable than a /24? Upon what basis do you define what is reasonable. I've shown my basis: when an entity announces the prefix they have been assigned, and filters are constructed based on registry allocation boundaries, there is no loss of visibility. It is only when an entity does not announce their allocated block, that there is a loss of visibility.
That ISP is less likely to have any successful litigation against it through sticking to their policy. Converse to your argument, ISP helpdesks could point their customers to call the company's helpdesk for failure to properly announce their address space.
Define "properly."
Announced as the allocated block.
The companies in question are different legal entities, operating in different countries, with no common ISPs, and no direction connection to each other. By definition, they are two different AS's with two different prefixes and two different routing policies. There is no valid way for these two companies to collectively announce a single route.
This is contrary to my interpetation of Dani's statement. The companies were sub-divisions of a single entity. They are only different because the single entity has chosen to make them different. There have been several means by which people have suggested. I, myself, suggested the use of GRE (or some other basis for a tunnel) to logically connect the networks together. If the two entities are entirely unconnected, then showing legal proof of same should be sufficient for receiving an allocation from ARIN (pending adherence to their allocation guidelines).
As the routing table size continues to increase, the number of entities who filter will increase, especially those who could better spend the upgrade costs on direct revenue generation.
History has shown the reverse to be true.
Who that filters is no longer doing so now? Who in here would rather spend money on a new router to hold the routing table rather than a new router to increase customer capacity? If everyone had a limitless supply of capital, and router vendors could scale their implementations infinitely, I, personally, wouldn't care if everyone deaggregated down to the /32 level.
While it may never happen in my lifetime, full-scale IPv6 deployment will undoubtedly make filtering an absolute requirement.
Anyone who doesn't already filter extensively is an AS7007 waiting to happen.
Ok, so you obviously agree with the premise of filtering, so what is "reasonable" in your eyes? More importantly, on what basis have you made the determination?
Now we've moved from the hypothetical to the nasty. I think the community is better served with an open and frank discussion on prefix filters, what is reasonable, and technical solutions to the issues or non-issues cited.
Citing "technical reasons" for excessive filtering but allowing exceptions for your own customers is clearly hypocritical. It's either a technical problem or it's not. Consistency is the issue, not the theoretical limits of the routing system.
Perhaps it is the issue for you. Consistency is also the issue for me, as well, but what I seek is consistency as to what announcement size is considered reasonable. If we all agreed on that, and filtered on it, then it doesn't matter who is hypocritical... which is the beauty of it all.
S