RE: Long Prefix Redundancy (Was: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop)

[Derrick Bennett <Derrick () anei COM>]

   Recently one of my customers was deciding between Co-Location at a major
provider and an in-house solution. Now most people will point to cost as a
factor but in this decision it was one of the last factors. The major
factors were of security, systems, functionality and administration. Without
going into all the why's, they made the decision to stay in house. 
   Are we moving towards a Net where you either have to be a big network or
be housed at a big network ? How does this help in the theories of diversity
and global reach. What happens when we move to IPV6 when every coffee pot in
the world has an address and most people have their own network ? Now I know
I don't have the answers but I do answer the calls when someone in northern
alaska can't get to the web site. Are we to the point where major ISP's can
now force us to co-locate at their facilities because of routing rules ?
Also how does this impact other countries as more routes and circuits show
up worldwide ? I am just wondering how this can get better as the route
tables keep growing. Is this a topic for the next nanog :)

Derrick

P.S. I apologize for letting my last email go out in HTML.



-----Original Message-----
From: Dana Hudes [mailto:dhudes () panix com]
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 6:51 PM
To: Derrick Bennett; nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Long Prefix Redundancy (Was: Verio Decides what parts of the
internet to drop)


The pressure is on to use co-location service only from Big Players. Indeed,
remember the big fight
over Exodus peering arrangements? Someone (GTE?) decided that Exodus should
pay them for transit
and pulled peering. since no other large network pulled such stunt the
result was  that GTE customers
were inconvenienced more than Exodus customers. 
The message is loud and clear. If you want your server farm to have good
access, put it in a good collocation
facility run by a very large provider who has good redundancy not only of
their network as a whole but
of their colo facility (a co-lo facility with only one WAN circuit does not
have good redundancy
even if the LAN is exceedingly good and fault-tolerant etc.).

Dana
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Derrick Bennett 
To: 'nanog () merit edu' 
Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 8:09 PM
Subject: RE: Long Prefix Redundancy (Was: Verio Decides what parts of the
internet to drop)




 Since we are all here at this point I would like to ask some questions on
what should be done for the small companies. I have setup several /24's with
various ISP's and have gotten them multi-homed with secondary ISP's, setup
BGP and overall things work relatively well. Now I have always been able to
go to some of the route servers and looking glass sites and see my
annoucements making it to several providers. But I have no way of knowing
that every ISP is accepting these routes and I have always beleived that
they weren't anyway.  
 Now through all this many people have asked the same question I am asking.
Companies that are being responsible and only occuping a single class C
still need redundancy and to me this is what BGP was meant to do. What does
the nanog community in general think should be done to help this growing
group of customers ? I never remember reading a FAQ anywhere that said only
large networks should get the redundancy features that have been built into
the Net.
  
And to answer the other point many of my customers would not mind paying a
fee to make their routes known. I would rather pay for proper routing then
pay for a /19 and waste space. 
Derrick  
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: James Smith [mailto:jsmith () dxstorm com] 
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 4:21 PM 
> To: Travis Pugh 
> Cc: Alex P. Rudnev; nanog () merit edu 
> 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/