Re: The Gorgon's Knot. Was: Re: Verio Peering Question
| I also encouraged all other backbones to filter Verio as Verio filters them. FWIW, I (continue to) encourage this too. Filter more than Verio, while you're at it. Sean. (against representation without taxation :-) )
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Sean M. Doran wrote:
| I also encouraged all other backbones to filter Verio as Verio filters them.
FWIW, I (continue to) encourage this too. Filter more than Verio, while you're at it.
I used to filter on both inbound and outbound. I don't believe filtering is inherently evil. I believe just the opposite, it is frequently necessary. Especially in a world where you can't verify route announcements and people occasionally announcing every disaggreated network in the table. Sprint had valid reasons for filtering. They had several old AGS routers, and didn't want to/couldn't upgrade them at the time to one of the routers used by other backbone providers i.e. 7000/SSP. To keep Sprint's network working, they filtered routes. This is an acceptable example of duct tape we've all needed to apply to our networks at one time or another to keep everything tied together. What annoyed me isn't the technical decision, but the marketing blitz used to justify it as "saving the Internet." No sales guy wants to say "because our routers can't handle the full routing table." Instead you get the revolving wheel of excuses like 1) Because we are saving the Internet (false) 2) Because ARIN/RIPE/APNIC makes us (false) 3) Because our peering agreements require it (false) Notice how it is always some third-party "forcing" them to do it. If you want to save the Internet, filter both inbound and outbound. Otherwise, don't pretend that's why you are doing it.
> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 23:53:45 +0100 > From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk> > > > Instead you get the revolving wheel of excuses like > you missed: > 4. We are not paid to accept this crap So your downstreams pay you to connect to: + Your AS only; + Some of the Internet, but with little concern re accessibility of small networks; + The whole Internet with as much reliability as possible? Oh, man, this is starting to sound like a peering policy argument, in which some people believe that Internet traffic is theoretically beneficial to both endpoints[1]. Or the reciprocal compensation arguments that traffic is more beneficial to one party... [1] #include <exceptions-mentioned-by-paul-vixie.h> I'm not arguing against filtering -- in and of itself, filtering is good. There's enough bad BGP and IGP-to-EGP leakage that I'd be worried if everyone allowed /32 announcements. But there's a limit at the other end, too: Maybe I'll filter anything longer than a /8... I'll also legally my name to "!U" (pronounced "the network admin formerly known as 'Eddy Dreger') at the same time. Eddy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT) From: A Trap <blacklist@brics.com> To: blacklist@brics.com Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature. These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots. Do NOT send mail to <blacklist@brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.
To set the record straingt -- by the time Sprint instituted filtering policy, it had no AGS+es in the core. Incidentally, Sprint was the first ISP to start deplyoing 7000s (and discovering bugs in those - the instability caused by the forced installation of the "latest and greatest" didn't make customers very happy). The reason for being very sensitive about routing tables was that ICM part of things had quite arcane routing policies; and ability of AS1800 boxes to process updates in a timely fashion was quite vital for keeping US-Europe Internet connectivity up and running. Marketing at that time was so clueless about Internet that they couldn't even pronounce "routing filter", and definitely couldn't make a marketing blitz out of it. --vadim On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Sean M. Doran wrote:
| I also encouraged all other backbones to filter Verio as Verio filters them.
FWIW, I (continue to) encourage this too. Filter more than Verio, while you're at it.
I used to filter on both inbound and outbound. I don't believe filtering is inherently evil. I believe just the opposite, it is frequently necessary. Especially in a world where you can't verify route announcements and people occasionally announcing every disaggreated network in the table.
Sprint had valid reasons for filtering. They had several old AGS routers, and didn't want to/couldn't upgrade them at the time to one of the routers used by other backbone providers i.e. 7000/SSP. To keep Sprint's network working, they filtered routes. This is an acceptable example of duct tape we've all needed to apply to our networks at one time or another to keep everything tied together.
What annoyed me isn't the technical decision, but the marketing blitz used to justify it as "saving the Internet."
No sales guy wants to say "because our routers can't handle the full routing table." Instead you get the revolving wheel of excuses like 1) Because we are saving the Internet (false) 2) Because ARIN/RIPE/APNIC makes us (false) 3) Because our peering agreements require it (false) Notice how it is always some third-party "forcing" them to do it.
If you want to save the Internet, filter both inbound and outbound. Otherwise, don't pretend that's why you are doing it.
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:
The reason for being very sensitive about routing tables was that ICM part of things had quite arcane routing policies; and ability of AS1800 boxes to process updates in a timely fashion was quite vital for keeping US-Europe Internet connectivity up and running.
Yeah, I know. Sometimes Sprint ICM was part of Sprint, other times it was that "other" network Sprint just happened to manage.
Marketing at that time was so clueless about Internet that they couldn't even pronounce "routing filter", and definitely couldn't make a marketing blitz out of it.
Sprint kept the filters on for years afterwards. It may have taken the clueless salespeople a few years, but they eventually did figure out how to recite the magic words "buy your circuit from sprint and you won't have problems with filters" was a way to win a sale. And who could forget the popular "Don't buy a circuit from small ISP, because they won't be able to get past the Internet filters." I went through a half-dozen Sprint sales people in different parts of the country, and by 1996 or so they all had the spiel down pat. I know, I should have taped their sales calls.
No, i'm not trying to say that Sprint isn't a sleazy big corporation, it is, like any other. Given the incentives sales people are given they are actively discouraged from caring about company image or long-term success. Meeting their quotas and making comissions - that's the name of the game, and exploiting situation of not their making isn't below them. But the decision what and how to filter had no marketing or sales input whatsoever (people who know me better would say that in an attempt to provide such "input" these sales or marketing people would be told to pluck themselves in a hurry). It was a pure engineering necessity, and Sean did a very good job handling it. Really saved the Internet, too. Getting a large backbone beyond the stability threshold would've killed more than just Sprint. --vadim On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Vadim Antonov wrote:
The reason for being very sensitive about routing tables was that ICM part of things had quite arcane routing policies; and ability of AS1800 boxes to process updates in a timely fashion was quite vital for keeping US-Europe Internet connectivity up and running.
Yeah, I know. Sometimes Sprint ICM was part of Sprint, other times it was that "other" network Sprint just happened to manage.
Marketing at that time was so clueless about Internet that they couldn't even pronounce "routing filter", and definitely couldn't make a marketing blitz out of it.
Sprint kept the filters on for years afterwards. It may have taken the clueless salespeople a few years, but they eventually did figure out how to recite the magic words "buy your circuit from sprint and you won't have problems with filters" was a way to win a sale. And who could forget the popular "Don't buy a circuit from small ISP, because they won't be able to get past the Internet filters." I went through a half-dozen Sprint sales people in different parts of the country, and by 1996 or so they all had the spiel down pat.
I know, I should have taped their sales calls.
participants (5)
-
Alex Bligh -
E.B. Dreger -
Sean Donelan -
smd＠clock.org -
Vadim Antonov