Seems to me that some people have issues when a thread is taken over. capiche... However, it also seems to me that there are people here who are intelligent engineers who are afraid to speak, due to the size of the company they work for. On behalf of the 'small guys', it sucks when you big(ger) guys: - don't listen to us - practice good behaviour (bcp38) and don't preach it - speak proudly of decent support, but don't respond to people who aren't staffed by a tier(x) - act as though you know something, but won't get out of the textbook mentality - again, this isn't a test for ccie, just because were working in smaller *sp's doesn't mean that we know less than you - we work hard. We have smaller networks. I bet we defend our border egress to you than you defend toward us - if all small guys like me are the same, then the 'big boys' should be motivated to move forward Lets take it off topic and off-thread... This is a big-boy list. Out of the small guys on this big boy list, lets have a hands-up for who is doing the right thing (v6 & network defence & protecting their connected networks )... Steve
Steve Bertrand wrote:
Seems to me that some people have issues when a thread is taken over. capiche...
However, it also seems to me that there are people here who are intelligent engineers who are afraid to speak, due to the size of the company they work for.
On behalf of the 'small guys', it sucks when you big(ger) guys:
- don't listen to us - practice good behaviour (bcp38) and don't preach it - speak proudly of decent support, but don't respond to people who aren't staffed by a tier(x) - act as though you know something, but won't get out of the textbook mentality - again, this isn't a test for ccie, just because were working in smaller *sp's doesn't mean that we know less than you - we work hard. We have smaller networks. I bet we defend our border egress to you than you defend toward us - if all small guys like me are the same, then the 'big boys' should be motivated to move forward
Lets take it off topic and off-thread...
This is a big-boy list. Out of the small guys on this big boy list, lets have a hands-up for who is doing the right thing (v6 & network defence & protecting their connected networks )...
Holy shiat, I can't even deal with the off-list feedback! Thank you! Politically, unfortunately, I'm not that type. I can't do much there. I wish that I could make decisions with the company purse, but I can't... On the other hand, I wish I could direct operations. I know what needs to be done, and I know how to command people to get there. I *think* I know how to direct an entire company (given its geo-location) to success given the area it's in. Nonetheless, I am where I am, and I like it. I am responsible for what comes into my network, and what leaves it. I have written an ISP management system, and ensure/troubleshoot montly revenue streams. I love my job. I love being an ISP. Unfortunately, my ISP doesn't love me the same way. ( I can understand the business aspect, but at least show that you are technically inclined!) Steve
- practice good behaviour (bcp38) and don't preach it
Did you mean preach but don't practice it? While I appreciate everyone who "preaches" it, I am not going to complain in the slightest at any "big guy" who practices BCP38. Just the opposite, I'm going to praise them whether they preach it or not. And this is not the big boy list. This is for all Operators in North America, and many who are not, regardless of size. (Well, I guess we'll exclude the guy who buys are cable/DSL link and "provides" to his mother & father with a LinkSys.) -- TTFN, patrick On Nov 1, 2009, at 11:01 PM, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Seems to me that some people have issues when a thread is taken over. capiche...
However, it also seems to me that there are people here who are intelligent engineers who are afraid to speak, due to the size of the company they work for.
On behalf of the 'small guys', it sucks when you big(ger) guys:
- don't listen to us - practice good behaviour (bcp38) and don't preach it - speak proudly of decent support, but don't respond to people who aren't staffed by a tier(x) - act as though you know something, but won't get out of the textbook mentality - again, this isn't a test for ccie, just because were working in smaller *sp's doesn't mean that we know less than you - we work hard. We have smaller networks. I bet we defend our border egress to you than you defend toward us - if all small guys like me are the same, then the 'big boys' should be motivated to move forward
Lets take it off topic and off-thread...
This is a big-boy list. Out of the small guys on this big boy list, lets have a hands-up for who is doing the right thing (v6 & network defence & protecting their connected networks )...
Steve
Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
- practice good behaviour (bcp38) and don't preach it
Did you mean preach but don't practice it? While I appreciate everyone who "preaches" it, I am not going to complain in the slightest at any "big guy" who practices BCP38. Just the opposite, I'm going to praise them whether they preach it or not.
I'm not a political person. Take it for what it is worth. I personally know people who do both: - practice but not preach - preach but don't practice ... however you take my point, I don't care. I just wanted it to be known that the 'guys' who do practice it should 'God willing' come out and preach it.
And this is not the big boy list. This is for all Operators in North America, and many who are not, regardless of size. (Well, I guess we'll exclude the guy who buys are cable/DSL link and "provides" to his mother & father with a LinkSys.)
eh, -stevieb has much respect for all those who read this list, and when he posts, feels that the big guys are looking down upon him... hopefully with approval. Steve
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 11:54:07PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
I'm not a political person. Take it for what it is worth.
I personally know people who do both:
- practice but not preach - preach but don't practice
... however you take my point, I don't care.
I just wanted it to be known that the 'guys' who do practice it should 'God willing' come out and preach it.
And this is not the big boy list. This is for all Operators in North America, and many who are not, regardless of size. (Well, I guess we'll exclude the guy who buys are cable/DSL link and "provides" to his mother & father with a LinkSys.)
eh, -stevieb has much respect for all those who read this list, and when he posts, feels that the big guys are looking down upon him... hopefully with approval.
Ok so, without getting into debates over being political, practicing vs preaching, BCP38, or big guys vs little guys, can you please explain in clear english what in the name of holy hell you're talking about? What is the issue here, that your DSL provider won't speak BGP with you no matter how many times you've asked, so you're complaining to NANOG about it because you don't have the ability or authority to change providers? Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but the emails so far haven't been very clear and this isn't making a lot of sense. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 11:54:07PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
I'm not a political person. Take it for what it is worth.
I personally know people who do both:
- practice but not preach - preach but don't practice
... however you take my point, I don't care.
I just wanted it to be known that the 'guys' who do practice it should 'God willing' come out and preach it.
And this is not the big boy list. This is for all Operators in North America, and many who are not, regardless of size. (Well, I guess we'll exclude the guy who buys are cable/DSL link and "provides" to his mother & father with a LinkSys.) eh, -stevieb has much respect for all those who read this list, and when he posts, feels that the big guys are looking down upon him... hopefully with approval.
Ok so, without getting into debates over being political, practicing vs preaching, BCP38, or big guys vs little guys, can you please explain in clear english what in the name of holy hell you're talking about?
What is the issue here, that your DSL provider won't speak BGP with you no matter how many times you've asked, so you're complaining to NANOG
Theoretically, I'm not complaining, I'm venting. This isn't just my DSL provider, its a business class connection provider who also happens to provide my (hrm.. our) primary Internet connection. Are you going to teach me something with a clue bat, or are you going to beat me to death with the specifics that each prong of a fork carries?
Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but the emails so far haven't been very clear and this isn't making a lot of sense.
My apologies if I haven't been clear. What would you like me to say? If I can't 'complain' here, where do I go? I think that I've acted tactfully and responsibly. What didn't make sense? Enlighten me. Although I did come here with concerns and questions, I do have a clue bat of my own to swing in defence... Steve
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:42:51AM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
This isn't just my DSL provider, its a business class connection provider who also happens to provide my (hrm.. our) primary Internet connection.
Are you going to teach me something with a clue bat, or are you going to beat me to death with the specifics that each prong of a fork carries?
Sure, I'll give it a brief shot... Some Internet connections are simply not designed to support customer BGP. When someone says "business class service" over cable or DSL, typically what they're talking about is "we'll route your calls to a slightly higher class call center", and "we'll provide you with 5 e-mail addresses/IPs and 50MB of hosting for your website instead of just the usual 1 email and 1 dynamic IP". The DSL gear may very well not be able to speak BGP to a customer at all. Each provider gets to decide what service they do and don't want to sell, and your provider has clearly decided they don't want to sell you BGP. From the providers' point of view, I'm sure this makes perfect sense. I'd love to get Comcast to speak BGP to my cable modem, but I have absolutely no delusions that they will ever do so. There is more than likely nothing you're going to be able to do about it, and the more you complain about it like this the more likely they are to move you into the "this guy is a nut and we don't want your business at all" category. If you don't like the service you're getting, vote with your money and buy from someone else. This is quite simply not a NANOG issue, but in the interests of being helpful the best advice I can give you is this: "Your request is unreasonable, and you should adjust your expectations that you'll ever get it from the service you are purchasing". Sorry if that's not the answer you want. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 12:42:51AM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
This isn't just my DSL provider, its a business class connection provider who also happens to provide my (hrm.. our) primary Internet connection.
Are you going to teach me something with a clue bat, or are you going to beat me to death with the specifics that each prong of a fork carries?
Sure, I'll give it a brief shot... Some Internet connections are simply not designed to support customer BGP. When someone says "business class service" over cable or DSL, typically what they're talking about is "we'll route your calls to a slightly higher class call center", and "we'll provide you with 5 e-mail addresses/IPs and 50MB of hosting for your website instead of just the usual 1 email and 1 dynamic IP".
The DSL gear may very well not be able to speak BGP to a customer at all. Each provider gets to decide what service they do and don't want to sell, and your provider has clearly decided they don't want to sell you BGP. From the providers' point of view, I'm sure this makes perfect sense. I'd love to get Comcast to speak BGP to my cable modem, but I have absolutely no delusions that they will ever do so. There is more than likely nothing you're going to be able to do about it, and the more you complain about it like this the more likely they are to move you into the "this guy is a nut and we don't want your business at all" category.
Richard, I appreciate your concern. I would have expected however that you might have understood that I wasn't asking about some resi-type connection. Yes, we are small. I would love to be in a position to say that our 100Mb connection qualifies... Regardless...
If you don't like the service you're getting, vote with your money and buy from someone else. This is quite simply not a NANOG issue, but in the interests of being helpful the best advice I can give you is this:
"Your request is unreasonable, and you should adjust your expectations that you'll ever get it from the service you are purchasing".
Tell me, what can you offer me? Here are my immediate purchasing qualifications: - 100Mbps - space in Torix - optic, from Toronto, Ontario to Cobourg, Ontario (55 miles) - gear at both ends We pay ~$2500 for the fibre and the bandwidth. Get me a deal. I am not the money man. I don't even want to deal with money. I can't vote with money, as it's not mine. Believe me, if I could vote with money, I'd be 100% HE. I'm venting. I'm allowed to vent here. I think I'm qualified to do so. Even though I can't speak with $, there are those who know my determination to keep a clean network, and they may be willing to help me in the future. Steve
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 01:16:24AM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
Tell me, what can you offer me? Here are my immediate purchasing qualifications:
- 100Mbps - space in Torix - optic, from Toronto, Ontario to Cobourg, Ontario (55 miles) - gear at both ends
We pay ~$2500 for the fibre and the bandwidth. Get me a deal. I am not the money man. I don't even want to deal with money. I can't vote with money, as it's not mine. Believe me, if I could vote with money, I'd be 100% HE.
You said business class DSL before, now you're saying 100Mbps. There are many dozens of providers who will speak BGP with you in 151 Front, you should have absolutely no trouble finding one to buy from at attractive prices. Your best bet is to unbundle the backhaul from the transit, that way you have flexibility to buy bandwidth from who you would like without being tied to the specific network providing the backhaul. But you said "gear on both ends", which implies that you have something in Toronto already? At any rate this is completely and totally off topic for NANOG, but if you say the words "I'd like to buy 100Mbps of service with BGP in Toronto" I'm sure you'll be swarmed with offers. -- Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
On Mon, Nov 2, 2009 at 1:16 AM, Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> wrote:
- space in Torix
TorIX is not a place, its actually two switches that form an Internet exchange. Perhaps you meant 151 Front Street? Do you have your own suite? Whose suite are you in?
I'm venting. I'm allowed to vent here. I think I'm qualified to do so.
Yes, according to www.ibctech.ca, you advertise that you are "Sage" level IPv6 qualified individual from Hurricane Electric. If you only had mentioned that first, no one would have replied to you with such elementary questions. That aside, I think you should have started your thread with explaining the problem you are trying to solve, instead of ranting about big providers and the ills they cause you. If you are in "torix space" why aren't you peering at TorIX (I don't see your ASN on the list)? Out of curiosity, have you contacted anyone off the TorIX participants list to see if they would be willing to sell IP transit and peer BGP with you? If you want a better venting location, try IRC. Drive Slow (because Cobourg has slow speed limits, especially near the water)
Steve Bertrand wrote:
I'm venting. I'm allowed to vent here. I think I'm qualified to do so Sorry, this is not facebook. You're not allowed to randomly splurt inane and unexplaned rants and complaints.
At the very least it makes you look stupid to your peers, and at worst it will harm your future employement prospects with anyone on the list. Think before you email. adam.
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
If you don't like the service you're getting, vote with your money and buy from someone else. This is quite simply not a NANOG issue, but in the interests of being helpful the best advice I can give you is this:
"Your request is unreasonable, and you should adjust your expectations that you'll ever get it from the service you are purchasing".
Sorry if that's not the answer you want. :)
Or you could look at alternatives with your provider, ie: "Ok, so we can't speak BGP over that particular link. May I colocate some router with you at extra cost and connect to you via -that-, so I may then speak BGP to you over that and then tunnel my data back to me over your DSL network?" That way you don't require your ISP to speak BGP over a DSL link and all of the headaches they may not be prepared for, and you get control over your own network. 2c, Adrian
Adrian Chadd wrote:
On Mon, Nov 02, 2009, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
If you don't like the service you're getting, vote with your money and buy from someone else. This is quite simply not a NANOG issue, but in the interests of being helpful the best advice I can give you is this:
"Your request is unreasonable, and you should adjust your expectations that you'll ever get it from the service you are purchasing".
Sorry if that's not the answer you want. :)
Or you could look at alternatives with your provider, ie:
"Ok, so we can't speak BGP over that particular link. May I colocate some router with you at extra cost and connect to you via -that-, so I may then speak BGP to you over that and then tunnel my data back to me over your DSL network?"
That way you don't require your ISP to speak BGP over a DSL link and all of the headaches they may not be prepared for, and you get control over your own network.
heh, Adrian, unfortunately, it's political, out of my grasp. Thankfully, these threads should be enough to either get things moving forward, or get me fired. Either way, progress was made. I'm sick of sitting still. I want to do more. Steve
Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Sun, Nov 01, 2009 at 11:54:07PM -0500, Steve Bertrand wrote:
I'm not a political person. Take it for what it is worth.
What is the issue here, that your DSL provider won't speak BGP with you no matter how many times you've asked, so you're complaining to NANOG about it because you don't have the ability or authority to change providers? Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but the emails so far haven't been very clear and this isn't making a lot of sense.
Any small ISP's that I may have the privilege to be involved with should have no issues running BGP with a DSL customer if thats what was needed to properly achieve their objectives. I would even do it over a GRE tunnel. BGP is a tool, not a measuring stick. Of course that would have more to do with insistence and effort to bring the overall network to the state where it is practical and non dangerous, some hodge-podges just are not conducive. You can attach a DSL line to any piece of complex gear, it just takes using a bridge. I have attached them to the full range of cisco "small" gear (among others), from 1600 - 7200. They all have ethernet ports and pppoe dialers. They can come up to speeds of 15/1. You can terminate multiples. You can use them in conjunction with faster lines. This kind of flexibility is exactly why small ISP's exist. Bring on the inflexibility! It is lifeblood for the small players and that is what competition is all about. We can always learn something of value from each other. I completely respect that those who work with larger networks as a matter of course have talents and skills other may not have been able to develop and hone and I believe the reverse is true as well. I have seen a welcoming and fairly level playing ground at NANOG, both at meetings and on this list. I suspect most consider whining and responding smackdowns to be distasteful and I would appreciate encouraging anyone with the temptation to do so to please reconsider and spare everyone. Save your draft, drink your coffee and re-read it before sending. Joe
Small-site multi-homing is one of the great inequities of the Internet and one that can, and should, be solved. I envision an Internet of the future where anyone with any mixture of any type of network connections can achieve, automatically, provider independence and inbound/outbound load sharing across disparate links. Gone is the built in hostage situation of having to either use your provider assigned IP's (>%99 of internet connected sites today), or the quantum leap of being an AS with PI space (and the associated technical baggage to configure and manage that beast). End users should have the power to dictate their own routing policies and not suffer thru 'damping', 'urpf', or other policies imposed on how or when their packets come and go. So if you want to use 2 dsl lines and a CDMA modem, or a satellite and a fiber, or 27 dial up modems and a T1, you should be able to do that and the network should work with you to deliver your packets no matter where 'you' connect or how. What it's gonna take is new routing paradigms and new thinking about the role of providers and users and a lowering of the barriers between these two for more cooperation in the overall structure of the network. Just like classfull addressing giving way to cidr, I belive hierarchal routing will give way to truely dynamic routing where all participants have equal capabilities over their own domain with no one (or group) of 'providers' having any more or less influence on global reachability for any 'users' who choose to go their own way, and I expect that to be an easy (or even default) choice in the future. You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one.
What is the issue here, that your DSL provider won't speak BGP with you no matter how many times you've asked, so you're complaining to NANOG about it because you don't have the ability or authority to change providers? Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but the emails so far haven't been very clear and this isn't making a lot of sense.
While the idea of seamless routing sounds great, so does world peace... I don't think I will see either in my lifetime. There are some technical hurdles you will have to solve first. 1st how do I solve security (preventing spoofing and other evil deeds done by rouge networks). 2nd how can my system scale and achieve stability. 3rd how will my routes work and converge (unstable routes don't work really well). 4th My system will need to work and scale on a much larger environment than a lab. 5th How do I test and verify your system. 6th Politics/Layer 8 (think peering wars) 7th How do I propose for routers be able to store (2^128 + 2^32) * x routes in their routing table, and possibly utilize current hardware (the whole world isn't going to do a flag day forklift upgrade) 8th How am I going to get anyone to invest money and R&D into my system. If you have any good idea's we'd love to hear them. I am open to such a system, but do not think it can realistically happen anytime soon. -- ---------------------- Brian Raaen Network Engineer braaen@zcorum.com On Tuesday 03 November 2009, Mike wrote:
Small-site multi-homing is one of the great inequities of the Internet and one that can, and should, be solved. I envision an Internet of the future where anyone with any mixture of any type of network connections can achieve, automatically, provider independence and inbound/outbound load sharing across disparate links. Gone is the built in hostage situation of having to either use your provider assigned IP's (>%99 of internet connected sites today), or the quantum leap of being an AS with PI space (and the associated technical baggage to configure and manage that beast). End users should have the power to dictate their own routing policies and not suffer thru 'damping', 'urpf', or other policies imposed on how or when their packets come and go. So if you want to use 2 dsl lines and a CDMA modem, or a satellite and a fiber, or 27 dial up modems and a T1, you should be able to do that and the network should work with you to deliver your packets no matter where 'you' connect or how.
What it's gonna take is new routing paradigms and new thinking about the role of providers and users and a lowering of the barriers between these two for more cooperation in the overall structure of the network. Just like classfull addressing giving way to cidr, I belive hierarchal routing will give way to truely dynamic routing where all participants have equal capabilities over their own domain with no one (or group) of 'providers' having any more or less influence on global reachability for any 'users' who choose to go their own way, and I expect that to be an easy (or even default) choice in the future.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one.
What is the issue here, that your DSL provider won't speak BGP with you no matter how many times you've asked, so you're complaining to NANOG about it because you don't have the ability or authority to change providers? Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but the emails so far haven't been very clear and this isn't making a lot of sense.
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:11:15 PST, Mike said:
Small-site multi-homing is one of the great inequities of the Internet and one that can, and should, be solved. I envision an Internet of the future where anyone with any mixture of any type of network connections can achieve, automatically, provider independence and inbound/outbound load sharing across disparate links.
400 million Joe Sixpacks and their counterparts around the globe, all wanting to run BGPto multihome the /29 in their basement. Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:11:15 PST, Mike said:
Small-site multi-homing is one of the great inequities of the Internet and one that can, and should, be solved. I envision an Internet of the future where anyone with any mixture of any type of network connections can achieve, automatically, provider independence and inbound/outbound load sharing across disparate links.
Hey there's always LISP, they even have code... http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/lisp-charter.html The largest inequity of all is that cost delta to you when advertise one more prefix (minor) vs the collective cost to the whole internet of carrying it. The fact is that a combination of technical conventions, business considerations, and social pressures retard the growth in the routing table to a rate which while not all that desirable from some perspectives is manageable. It continues to be the case that the barrier to entry is relatively low as the existance proof of new entrants routinely shows. There is in fact nothing other than a little money, time, and a business need between you and multihoming. The fact that it may not be as cheap or convenient as some might like is not the product of discrimination...
400 million Joe Sixpacks and their counterparts around the globe, all wanting to run BGPto multihome the /29 in their basement.
Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
In message <5414.1257270127@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu w rites:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 08:11:15 PST, Mike said:
Small-site multi-homing is one of the great inequities of the Internet and one that can, and should, be solved. I envision an Internet of the future where anyone with any mixture of any type of network connections can achieve, automatically, provider independence and inbound/outbound load sharing across disparate links.
400 million Joe Sixpacks and their counterparts around the globe, all wanting to run BGPto multihome the /29 in their basement.
Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.
With a protocol to distribute which prefixes (with weighting) are viable, a end node could just select a appropritate source address out of several provider assigned ones and use source address routing to find a appropropiate exit path which doesn't break BCP 38. This is as good as the NAT solutions for small-site multi-homing today. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Well you and the rest of these so called "dreamers" can help with the purchase of my new routers that don't exist yet to support you wanting to multi-home a /29 and have the rest of the Internet world hold all of these said /29's in their tables. Most folks who get a /29's don't care how they get to and from the internet, they just want to always be able to get there. TE at that granular of a level is not needed. So in other words, you and the rest of the world of these dreamers can keep dreaming, because I doubt any sensible ISP would accept and pass along anyone announcing /29's .... and then there's V6, which I won't even get started on. Most ISP's are having a hard time holding 300k ipv4 routes as of today, and you want to de-aggregate even farther?? Clue On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Mike <mike-nanog@tiedyenetworks.com> wrote:
Small-site multi-homing is one of the great inequities of the Internet and one that can, and should, be solved. I envision an Internet of the future where anyone with any mixture of any type of network connections can achieve, automatically, provider independence and inbound/outbound load sharing across disparate links. Gone is the built in hostage situation of having to either use your provider assigned IP's (>%99 of internet connected sites today), or the quantum leap of being an AS with PI space (and the associated technical baggage to configure and manage that beast). End users should have the power to dictate their own routing policies and not suffer thru 'damping', 'urpf', or other policies imposed on how or when their packets come and go. So if you want to use 2 dsl lines and a CDMA modem, or a satellite and a fiber, or 27 dial up modems and a T1, you should be able to do that and the network should work with you to deliver your packets no matter where 'you' connect or how.
What it's gonna take is new routing paradigms and new thinking about the role of providers and users and a lowering of the barriers between these two for more cooperation in the overall structure of the network. Just like classfull addressing giving way to cidr, I belive hierarchal routing will give way to truely dynamic routing where all participants have equal capabilities over their own domain with no one (or group) of 'providers' having any more or less influence on global reachability for any 'users' who choose to go their own way, and I expect that to be an easy (or even default) choice in the future.
You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day you'll join us, and the world will live as one.
What is the issue here, that your DSL provider won't speak BGP with you
no matter how many times you've asked, so you're complaining to NANOG about it because you don't have the ability or authority to change providers? Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but the emails so far haven't been very clear and this isn't making a lot of sense.
Clue Store wrote:
Well you and the rest of these so called "dreamers" can help with the purchase of my new routers that don't exist yet to support you wanting to multi-home a /29 and have the rest of the Internet world hold all of these said /29's in their tables. Most folks who get a /29's don't care how they get to and from the internet, they just want to always be able to get there. TE at that granular of a level is not needed. So in other words, you and the rest of the world of these dreamers can keep dreaming, because I doubt any sensible ISP would accept and pass along anyone announcing /29's .... and then there's V6, which I won't even get started on. Most ISP's are having a hard time holding 300k ipv4 routes as of today, and you want to de-aggregate even farther??
It's clear that you have some impatience with deaggregation, and with cause. However, there are a few flaws in your position. The first is that you contradicted yourself. If most folks who get a /29 don't care how they get to and from the Internet, then there won't be a flood of new /29s. It is the minority who do care how they get to and from the Internet who will be adding routes. Currently, they are doing so by getting more address space than they need assigned, so as to have a block large enough to be heard. If 500 companies are currently announcing /24s to be heard, but could be moved to /29s, then you still have 500 route announcements. You just have a lot less waste. The second is that you said "BGP." Mike didn't say BGP. He said he was dreaming of the future. That future coudl easily include a lightweight multihoming protocol, something that informs interested parties of presence on multiple networks, or allows for extremely fast reconvergence, so that a second route need only join the routing table when needed. And he's right; if I want to change my name to Joe, grab a sixpack, build a rack in my kitchen, and pay two providers for service, it isn't unreasonable to want an infrastructure that supports my configuration. We shouldn't dismiss a dreamer's dream because it is hard, or we can't do it right now with what we have. The desire to do what is not currently possible is the source of innovation, and we shouldn't shoot down innovation because it sounds hard and we don't like it. -Dave
If 500 companies are currently announcing /24s to be heard, but could be moved to /29s, then you still have 500 route announcements. You just have a lot less waste.
That's my situation here. I've got a /24 with fewer than 10 public IPs active, because I need those 10 hosts to be reachable even after Bubba and his backhoe finish tearing up the road in front of my office. -- Dave Pooser, ACSA Manager of Information Services Alford Media http://www.alfordmedia.com
I think you're missing my point and did not read my post completely. First off, BGP was never mentioned in my post. By the time these 'dreamers' want to announce a /29 to multiple providers and have everyone accept them with this new light weight protocol you speak about, there will hopefully be no /29's (as in v4 host sub-nets) as I dream that IPv4 will be a forgotten protocol by the time BGP is replaced by this magical protocol that does not exist in any form as today. If I accept a /29 for the minority and pass that prefix along to the next provider, I have to accept it for the majority and pass them along to the next provider. And these 500 company's you speak about, the other blocks given back to <insert RIR or LIR here> would be hashed back out which WOULD still increase prefixes in the global table as they want to advertise their /29's. I agree that it would save v4 space right now for those who wouldn't announce the remainder /29's, but you're thinking short term as we all know that v4 space has out-welcomed it's stay (thank you NAT). Yes, it will run paraellel for 3, 5, maybe 7 years until enough folks get a clue and make the switch to v6, but in the end, v4 will go away. Having all that said, I am not knocking the 'dreamers' out there one bit. I encourage new ideas to help solve issues that we've discussed in this very thread. But at this point, there's more dreaming than solutions and revenue. And de-aggreation is one of the biggest problems with global routing today. Add v6 and the possibility of /48's being permitted into the global table, and most folks with a router from any vendor today couldn't support a full global table. I'll stop my rant at that, but again, im not knocking the dreamers. I'm just having to deal with more problems that don't have valid solutions today. Clue On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Dave Israel <davei@otd.com> wrote:
Well you and the rest of these so called "dreamers" can help with the purchase of my new routers that don't exist yet to support you wanting to multi-home a /29 and have the rest of the Internet world hold all of
said /29's in their tables. Most folks who get a /29's don't care how
get to and from the internet, they just want to always be able to get
TE at that granular of a level is not needed. So in other words, you and
Clue Store wrote: these they there. the
rest of the world of these dreamers can keep dreaming, because I doubt any sensible ISP would accept and pass along anyone announcing /29's .... and then there's V6, which I won't even get started on. Most ISP's are having a hard time holding 300k ipv4 routes as of today, and you want to de-aggregate even farther??
It's clear that you have some impatience with deaggregation, and with cause. However, there are a few flaws in your position. The first is that you contradicted yourself. If most folks who get a /29 don't care how they get to and from the Internet, then there won't be a flood of new /29s. It is the minority who do care how they get to and from the Internet who will be adding routes. Currently, they are doing so by getting more address space than they need assigned, so as to have a block large enough to be heard. If 500 companies are currently announcing /24s to be heard, but could be moved to /29s, then you still have 500 route announcements. You just have a lot less waste.
The second is that you said "BGP." Mike didn't say BGP. He said he was dreaming of the future. That future coudl easily include a lightweight multihoming protocol, something that informs interested parties of presence on multiple networks, or allows for extremely fast reconvergence, so that a second route need only join the routing table when needed. And he's right; if I want to change my name to Joe, grab a sixpack, build a rack in my kitchen, and pay two providers for service, it isn't unreasonable to want an infrastructure that supports my configuration.
We shouldn't dismiss a dreamer's dream because it is hard, or we can't do it right now with what we have. The desire to do what is not currently possible is the source of innovation, and we shouldn't shoot down innovation because it sounds hard and we don't like it.
-Dave
Clue Store wrote:
I think you're missing my point and did not read my post completely.
First off, BGP was never mentioned in my post.
Oops, you are correct. Somebody else said "BGP." You spoke of the existing table, and so I had BGP in my mind, and I muddled the two together. Mea culpa.
If I accept a /29 for the minority and pass that prefix along to the next provider, I have to accept it for the majority and pass them along to the next provider. And these 500 company's you speak about, the other blocks given back to <insert RIR or LIR here> would be hashed back out which WOULD still increase prefixes in the global table as they want to advertise their /29's. I agree that it would save v4 space right now for those who wouldn't announce the remainder /29's, but you're thinking short term as we all know that v4 space has out-welcomed it's stay (thank you NAT). Yes, it will run paraellel for 3, 5, maybe 7 years until enough folks get a clue and make the switch to v6, but in the end, v4 will go away.
That assumes that there isn't a solution that requires constant presence in the global table, instead of a tell-me-about-this-prefix-when-I-need-it-and-not-before method. I admit that there hasn't been a good solution to the problem yet, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. I'm not sure it has been seriously researched in recent years.
Having all that said, I am not knocking the 'dreamers' out there one bit. I encourage new ideas to help solve issues that we've discussed in this very thread. But at this point, there's more dreaming than solutions and revenue. And de-aggreation is one of the biggest problems with global routing today. Add v6 and the possibility of /48's being permitted into the global table, and most folks with a router from any vendor today couldn't support a full global table.
No, but providers having to upgrade software or hardware to support the needs of the network in 3, 5, or 7 years isn't anything new, and neither is router vendors coming up with incremental software or hardware upgrades to make boxes do what they can't do now. -Dave
participants (15)
-
Adam Armstrong -
Adrian Chadd -
Brian Raaen -
Clue Store -
Dave Israel -
Dave Pooser -
Joe Maimon -
Joel Jaeggli -
Mark Andrews -
Mike -
Patrick W. Gilmore -
Paul Wall -
Richard A Steenbergen -
Steve Bertrand -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu