Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop

["Travis Pugh" <tdp () discombobulated net>]

As a side note, the filtering policies would seem to attach more value to
addresses in the old class C space, as it is feasible for a customer to
multihome and get through filters with these addresses.  Has anyone seen any
amount of service provider selection based on which address space they would
allocate from?

Travis

----- Original Message -----
From: James Smith <jsmith () dxstorm com>
To: Travis Pugh <tdp () discombobulated net>
Cc: Alex P. Rudnev <alex () virgin relcom eu net>; <nanog () merit edu>
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop


> The unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of businesses that need
> 99.99% reliability and uptime, but aren't big enough to get a /19.
>
> My previous company was a credit card processing gateway.  If they went
> down, their customers were screwed.  But they hadn't even used a Class C,
> so they weren't eligible for a /19 or /20 from ARIN.
>
> My point is that the current requirement that a network must have a large
> chunck of IP space to be multi-homed is not ideal.  According to the
> status quo, while an e-commerce company such as a credit card processor
> may be big in the business world and worth millions, but insignificant on
> the Net and left vulnerable because it can't be multi-homed.
>
>
> --
> James Smith, CCNA
> Network/System Administrator
> DXSTORM.COM
>
> http://www.dxstorm.com/
>
> DXSTORM Inc.
> 2140 Winston Park Drive, Suite 203
> Oakville, ON, CA L6H 5V5
> Tel:   905-829-3389 (email preferred)
> Fax:  905-829-5692
> 1-877-DXSTORM (1-877-397-8676)
>
> On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Travis Pugh wrote:
>
> > I've been lurking and looking at this conversation too long ... my head
is
> > spinning.  Alex says there are many reasons causing people to announce B
> > nets with short prefixes, and he is entirely right.  The primary one
would
> > be that a client, by some inexplicable reasoning, expects their Internet
> > service to be up and running reliably at least 95% of the time.
> >
> > The disturbing message I have been able to glean from this thread is
that:
> > - If you need reliability, get a /19
> > - If you are a small customer, using only a /24 for connectivity (and
thus
> > helping to slow depletion) you are not BIG enough to expect multi-path
> > reliability into your network
> > - If you are a big provider, not only do you not have to provide a
> > consistent level of service to your customers, but you are free to block
> > them (and anyone else from other providers) arbitrarily when they spend
a
> > good deal of money to augment your service with someone else's
> >
> > The gist of the conversation, IMO, is that customers can't have
reliability
> > with one provider, but they will be blocked from having reliability
through
> > multiple providers if their addresses happen to be in the "wrong" space.
> > Something's wrong with that.
> >
> > Cheers.
> >
> > Travis
> > Eeeevillll consultant
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Alex P. Rudnev <alex () virgin relcom eu net>
> > To: Randy Bush <rbush () bainbridge verio net>
> > Cc: <doug () safeport com>; <nanog () merit edu>
> > Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 5:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
> >
> >
> > > It should be your problem. You simply loss the part of connectivity...
> > >
> > > The real world is more complex than you drawn below. There is many
reasons
> > > causing people to announce class-B networks with the short prefixes.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Randy Bush wrote:
> > >
> > > > Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 13:00:17 -0800
> > > > From: Randy Bush <rbush () bainbridge verio net>
> > > > To: doug () safeport com
> > > > Cc: nanog () merit edu
> > > > Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Apparently for their convenience Verio has decided what parts of
the
> > > > > Internet I can get to.
> > > >
> > > > verio does not accept from peers announcements of prefixes in
classic b
> > > > space longer than the allocations of the regional registries.
> > > >
> > > > we believe our customers and the internet as a whole will be less
> > > > inconvenienced by our not listening to sub-allocation prefixes than
to
> > have
> > > > major portions of the network down as has happened in the past.
some
> > here
> > > > may remember the 129/8 disaster which took significant portions of
the
> > net
> > > > down for up to two days.
> > > >
> > > > the routing databases are not great, and many routers can not handle
> > ACLs
> > > > big enough to allow a large to irr filter large peers.  and some
large
> > peers
> > > > do not register routes.
> > > >
> > > > so we and others filter at allocation boundaries and have for a long
> > time.
> > > > we assure you we do not do it without serious consideration or to
> > torture
> > > > nanog readers.
> > > >
> > > > > With no notification.
> > > >
> > > > verio's policy has been constant and public.
> > > >
> > > > randy
> > >
> > > Aleksei Roudnev,
> > > (+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/