Re: multi-homing fixes

[Hal Snyder <hal () vailsys com>]

Steve Noble <snoble () sonn com> writes:

> The point was that companies may not need more then a /24 to put
> their entire site on, yet may be pushed to say they have more in
> order to acquire a /20 from ARIN, just to be globally visable.

Right, just as they are already pushed to get /24 blocks without really
needing them.

> If you were in a position where you did NOT have your own previously
> allocated swamp/b/a space, you wanted to multihome to a few
> different providers in such a way that you were globally reachable
> no matter who went offline and you only needed a /24 or less, what
> would you do?

A couple more comments.

1. Customers requesting address blocks today - possibly due to a
simple change of ISP - may get new /24 allocations from 63/8 and
similar lowly turf because that is what is available. Verio (are there
others?) filters prefixes from these players on the basis of first
octet. Not sure why somebody is more of a threat to the net from 63/8
than from 207/8.

2. Raising the bar on filtering to block /24 would penalize customers
who want to be good netizens by doing rfc2260-ish multihoming, where
long prefixes are advertised only in failure mode.