route filtering policies (from "split b" thread)
Mike Lieberman
Mike at netwright.net
Mon Jun 5 20:37:21 EDT 2000
In the cases we deal with it's an essential requirement for these companies.
Lines in our neck of the world are unreliable and unless the customer
falsifies a need for more IP we need to find a way to make this work. I am
not saying that we shouldn't aggregate whenever possible. To suggest that
/24 need to be routed, doesn't equate to we should route everything as a
/24. To make such an argument doesn't serve the purpose of discussion.
>Announcing the entire internet as /24's just isn't scaleable
There are legitimate needs to be able to fully route a /24 on occasion and
to say, well that's just the say it is, makes companies lie so that they can
get the /20 that will route.
These are not necessarily small companies by annual revenues. They just
don't have a need for more than a /24. The policies of the large vendors who
insist on filtering, do more to serve the business objectives of those
vendors, than they do to protect the scalability of the Internet.
/* Mike Lieberman Mike at NetWright.Net */
/* President */
/* Net Wright LLC */
/* http://www.netwright.net */
/* Voice and Fax: 307-857-1053 */
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pete Bowden [mailto:repete at cncx.com]
> Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 6:21 PM
> To: Mike at netwright.net
> Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> Subject: Re: route filtering policies (from "split b" thread)
>
>
> A customer that has a /24 from you will have a hard time
> justifying a /20 or
> 21 to ARIN. You're right, in the case of a failure, there
> may be issues...
> and ARIN doesn't guarantee that routes of any size will be
> announced or
> accepted anywhere on the net. If you are willing to accept your own
> announcements from others then you might still have a route
> to your customer
> when your circuit goes down via their other provider... that's your
> choice... Announcing the entire internet as /24's just isn't
> scaleable, and
> the needs of the large players are sometimes at odds with the
> desires of
> smaller providers or collocation/server/hosting providers --
> who are more
> likely to make that sale on the type of one-off or exception,
> where many of
> the larger players will just say that they can't guarantee
> that a dual homed
> connection will work in the case of either providers circuit
> failing.
>
> >
> > Let's start with the fact that my customer also has to be
> seen out the OTHER
> > ROUTE that belongs to ANOTHER vendor. If we agregated the
> customer then we
> > announce him even when his line to us is down. It has gone
> done once in the
> > last year and it took the local ILEC over nine hours to fix
> it. His route to
> > me MUST disappear when I am not carrying him so that all
> traffic will flow
> > to the other vendor who is announcing the /24 as well.
> >
> > He can't afford to be down for nine hours - his line to the
> other Vendor has
> > failed three times in the last years for a total out of
> server duration of
> > four days - and that's Sprintlink.
> >
> > So indeed there is a need for him to lie so that he can get
> a block that
> > will route if filters are going to drop him.
> >
> > /* Mike Lieberman Mike at NetWright.Net */
> > /* President */
> > /* Net Wright LLC */
> > /* http://www.netwright.net */
> > /* Voice and Fax: 307-857-1053 */
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Pete Bowden [mailto:repete at cncx.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, June 05, 2000 5:06 PM
> > > To: Mike at netwright.net
> > > Cc: arin-discuss at arin.net
> > > Subject: Re: route filtering policies (from "split b" thread)
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, but in your case you should be announcing your
> larger agregate...
> > > so... since your customer should still be reachable from you
> > > if the route
> > > is filtered they will not see the more specific and will see
> > > the agregate
> > > and route the block to you... you in turn will hand it over
> > > to your customer.
> > > No need for them to lie about anything.... you just need to
> > > make the case to
> > > them that this is how it works for technical reasons beyond
> > > your ability to
> > > control -- technical reasons being limiting bandwidth and
> > > other providers
> > > not feeling like they should be compelled to provide free
> > > passage of other
> > > peoples blocks.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This conversation about filter leaves me scratching my head.
> > > >
> > > > Some of you are making a specific assumption that only
> > > large bandwidth, large
> > > > block users must multihome between various providers. While
> > > I do not argue
> > > > that this is the most common situation, it is not the only
> > > situation.
> > > >
> > > > We support one company that is currently multi-homed
> > > between two providers
> > > > and will likely be adding a third. No line is larger than a
> > > T1. The customer
> > > > barely needs a /24. So we provide the customer a /24. He
> > > then announces this
> > > > network to his other vendor as well as through us.
> > > >
> > > > If this customers routes get filtered because the company's
> > > address block
> > > > isn't large enough, the only thing you are doing to placing
> > > pressure on the
> > > > customer to fake the need for more IP addresses so that
> > > their network gets
> > > > announced and carried by more networks. Am I the only one
> > > who thinks that
> > > > such filtering policies are counter intuitive?
> > > >
> > > > The need to preserve IP space is at odds with the needs to
> > > hold down the size
> > > > of the BPG announcements. ARIN members needs to make a
> > > choice. I don't like
> > > > rules that force my customers to lie to me or suffer
> poor routing.
> > > >
> > > > /* Mike Lieberman
> Mike at NetWright.Net */
> > > > /* President
> */
> > > > /* Net Wright LLC
> */
> > > > /* http://www.netwright.net/
> */
> > > > /* Voice and Fax: 307-857-1053
> */
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Pete Bowden, Internet Network Engineer, Internet & Data
> > > Center Engineering
> > > rePete at concentric.com rePete at cncx.com
> pete at internex.net NIC:PB8
> > > Concentric Network Corporation, 1400 Parkmoor Ave., San Jose,
> > > CA 95126-3429
> > > Voice: 408-808-6010 Fax: 408-808-6010
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Pete Bowden, Internet Network Engineer, Internet & Data
> Center Engineering
> rePete at concentric.com rePete at cncx.com pete at internex.net NIC:PB8
> Concentric Network Corporation, 1400 Parkmoor Ave., San Jose,
> CA 95126-3429
> Voice: 408-808-6010 Fax: 408-808-6010
>
More information about the ARIN-discuss
mailing list