Re: ISP Domain Auction

["Craig A. Huegen" <c-huegen () quad quadrunner com>]

On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, mike wrote:

> Shouldn't we here see how we get our act together, e.g. peering (why in 
> this community are there people not peering, putting up 'rules' etc, when 
> peering would just make everyone happy since the routing landscape is way 
> simpler when there are lots of direct links), and of course, the same 
> always: instead of creating unnecessary friction to put into the address 
> allocation mechanism a measure to satisfy building up ISP/NSP businesses. 
> I agree that there might some people need more restrictive routing, but 
> restrictions must always be implemented in a way not to create injustice 
> or even only extra problems.

Well, the prefix-filtering policies of the unnamed ISP you mention above 
is definitely a problem.  However, I don't see it as a problem for me, 
because most ISP's are sensible enough to route that kind of traffic.

I look at it as a problem for customers who use that unnamed ISP.  Those 
customers should contact their providers and pressure them to get 
alternative links (or, in the case they are a direct customer of this unnamed 
ISP, change to another provider or obtain another link and become 
multi-homed).

I think that right now, we shouldn't be too concerned with "CIDRize or 
DIE!".  At this point, we should be helping other entities out--you're 
not FORCING them to renumber by making their networks non-routable 
within one organization--you're screwing your customers out of optimal 
connectivity to any particular site.

The Internet has gotten too much away from the original purpose, to share 
information.  It has gone to a vast commercial marketing symbol, where 
most companies really don't care about other entities--"Why should we 
help this group?  They're customers of ISP X!"

Now, if there's a sincere need to filter, say, because you still use 
AGS+'s with CSC/3's and 16 MB of RAM and your poor 1988-age equipment 
can't handle it, then fine...

/cah