Re: "portability" of IP Addresses
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 at 21:09 MST, Pete Kruckenberg <pete@inquo.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Alan Hannan wrote:
[...]
Can a provider forbid their customer from announcing allocated networks to another provider?
Yes. This is the discretion of the provider. Few forbid it completely, but it does happen. More likely you'll see a list of conditions that must be met before this is allowed, perhaps even including a small additional fee to cover the added administrative headaches.
Assume the following situation: ------------------------------
ISP A gets customer C to sign an agreement for service. ISP A allocates network A.B.C.0/20 to customer C. A.B.C.0/20 is a subnet of CIDR block A.B.0.0/16, allocated to ISP A by our friends at the InterNIC as a non-portable address space. [...] So, customer C goes to ISP B, and says, I'd like to buy service from you, and announce network A.B.C.0/20 to you.
I would think that ISP A would be all for it, since as soon as ISP B starts announcing the /20, all in-bound traffic will come through ISP B and relieve some of ISP A's bandwidth. Since ISP A is announcing a /16, the /20 announced by ISP B would take precedence, being a more specific route.
Why exactly do you think this makes ISP A happy? Most likely the link to ISP B is a link that ISP A would have preferred to sell themselves. And to "relieve some of ISP A's bandwidth" doesn't make ISP A any happier since they have to engineer for that bandwidth anyway for those cases where ISP B fails. Ok, I'll allow that some ISPs get charged by the packet by their upstream provider and thus would have slightly lower overall costs as ISP A under this scenario. I'd be surprised if that difference offsets added costs elsewhere in the average case.
I would think that ISP A would not have much to stand on from a legal standpoint: - your contract does not prevent you from buying service from another provider (I'm assuming this),
Probably true, but not necessarily so. There's nothing illegal about an exclusive contract.
and (I further assume) it does not prohibit you from letting another ISP announce those routes
This is a stretch. Chances are that your contract does not specify anything about announcing routes to third parties, but since the larger block was initially assigned to ISP A, it reasonably follows that ISP A can regulate those blocks through separate policy so long as your contract does not say otherwise. Even so, many (most?) contracts these days make sure by proclaiming that addresses assigned by the ISP are not the property of the customer and that the ISP retains some level of control.
- as it stands now (and will until ARIN changes it), ISP A does not actually *own* an IP addresses, and there is at least one RFC that makes this pretty clear, as well as several InterNIC policies
This is true, but neither do you the customer.
- neither you nor ISP B are prohibiting ISP A from fulfilling their obligations to you or the rest of your customers by announcing the /20 separately - the announcement of the /20 does not cost ISP A anything extra, nor does it increase any contractual requirements for ISP A
In an ideal, well-informed world, these latter two would be true. But they're not. The number of possible problems with external routes multiplies with multiple announcements. Then, when those problems do occur, ISP A and ISP B must both work at fixing things. If ISP B is cooperative, coordination still requires extra time and effort. If ISP B is not cooperative, ISP A either spends much more time trying to troubleshoot ISP B's part, or ISP A gets a black eye when ISP B screws up, or both. As more ISPs learn this, more are writing provisions for it into their contracts.
This is a pretty gray area, though, but I think you have a pretty good chance to be able to contest what ISP A says. That probably won't make them go out of their way for you in the future, though.
That may or may not be true. An professionally-run ISP is happy to explain the logic behind their policies and work with you to find an adequate solution to your requirements. Questioning their initial ideas might yield better solutions, but forcing your solution over their objections is likely to yield a solution that doesn't fit your ISP's architecture and thus doesn't serve you well. And that WILL make them annoyed with you as well.
Pete Kruckenberg pete@inquo.net
Eric Sobocinski sobo@merit.net
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Eric Sobocinski wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997 at 21:09 MST, Pete Kruckenberg <pete@inquo.net> wrote:
On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Alan Hannan wrote:
I would think that ISP A would be all for it, since as soon as ISP B starts announcing the /20, all in-bound traffic will come through ISP B and relieve some of ISP A's bandwidth. Since ISP A is announcing a /16, the /20 announced by ISP B would take precedence, being a more specific route.
Why exactly do you think this makes ISP A happy? Most likely the link to ISP B is a link that ISP A would have preferred to sell themselves. And to "relieve some of ISP A's bandwidth" doesn't make ISP A any happier since they have to engineer for that bandwidth anyway for those cases where ISP B fails.
Sure A would prefer to sell it, but most professionals would (I think) admit that greater robustness is achieved with greater distinction between circuits. And, while the engineering must occur to allow for full usage, as you state, I would argue that lower averages allow more "thorough" provisioning. If five customers multihoming only use the bandwidth of three singly-connected customers, I can more efficiently plan my network.
I would think that ISP A would not have much to stand on from a legal standpoint: - your contract does not prevent you from buying service from another provider (I'm assuming this),
Probably true, but not necessarily so. There's nothing illegal about an exclusive contract.
ANd, in fact, they probably exist. Is MSNBC contractually free to use any ISP?
and (I further assume) it does not prohibit you from letting another ISP announce those routes
This is a stretch. Chances are that your contract does not specify anything about announcing routes to third parties, but since the larger block was initially assigned to ISP A, it reasonably follows that ISP A can regulate those blocks through separate policy so long as your contract does not say otherwise. Even so, many (most?) contracts these days make sure by proclaiming that addresses assigned by the ISP are not the property of the customer and that the ISP retains some level of control.
ISP A can regulate IP addresses allocated, yes, but it can only regulate internal policy. I would think ISP A's position for regulating address announcement would be particularly weak if assignment had been publicly made to a customer, such as with SWIP. I also don't know that it's ISP B's responsibility to follow the wishes/policy of ISP A, although I suspect it probably would, since inter-provider relations are generally more important than any single customer (insofar as keeping the net up). Please note that I do not speak on behalf of ANYBODY, except myself. Although even I disclaim. Lee
Pete Kruckenberg pete@inquo.net
Eric Sobocinski sobo@merit.net
On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Lee Howard wrote:
ISP A can regulate IP addresses allocated, yes, but it can only regulate internal policy. I would think ISP A's position for regulating address announcement would be particularly weak if assignment had been publicly made to a customer, such as with SWIP.
Since ISPs are _required_ to SWIP, you can't assume that a SWIP means anything except that the ISP that SWIPped it wants a registry to know those IPs are in use by a customer, especially in address space that is marked non-portable. DS
participants (3)
-
David Schwartz
-
Eric Sobocinski
-
Lee Howard