route filtering policies (from "split b" thread)

[Mike Lieberman]

> Mike,
>
> I hesitate to participate in this discussion because it has
> been beaten to death over and over again.  But since I am on
> the ARIN Advisory Council and this is one of the things that
> we are trying to deal with, I have some questions for you.
>
>     >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.
>
> How would you define exactly how to identify one of these
> organizations?

Look I understand the frustration you are all having with this... but let's
say ARIN sells /24's for $2.500/yr. You really need it for your home now?

You need a router and bandwidth capable of full BGP. Vendors who will take
your BGP.  You're not going to use ISDN, cable modems, xDSL or a inexpensive
router. The cost alone if structured correctly can provide a reasonable
self-selective system by which most networks won't want the costs or the
hassles.

I actually attended a meeting as a consultant to a company that will go
unnamed. They have a /21 and there was a disussion about putting everything
behind a firewall and using private IP. The head of their IT group pointed
out that they would lose their ability to router their network as they were
doing via BGP and would put the company at risk. That was the end of the
discussion. Like I said early on in this discussion. You have two competing
needs. Address space and routing tables. By not making a rational choice,
you simple produce decisions that have adverse impacts.

I think you need to say OK, if have multiple paths, the right router, you
are willing to pay, then you get X address space and that WILL route,
whether you need that much space or not. Set it low enough so that you can
live with the waste and high enough so that tables don't break for the few
who will pay for it(I think a /24 fits if the cost to get it is high
enough). And then don't make the user justify the network need for the size
of the block. The only justifaction comes if the request if for more
numbers.

> One of the issues being dealt with by ARIN and the other registries
> is how to determine who has a legitimate need and who doesn't. Further
> when we can determine who has a legitimate need, then we
> could actually
> determine how many there might be and what the impact on the routing
> table would be.  For example, ARIN would start seeing requests for
> people like me who have a sizable network in their home and want
> redundancy.  Should I get a globally routable /24?  My home network
> is important.  (at least I think it is)  What if I need a /28?  Should
> that be routed as well?
>
>     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.
>
> Most of the folks I know who filter do it to keep their networks
> working and for no other reason.
>
> Thanks for your input.
> ---CJ
>



/* Mike Lieberman                            Mike at NetWright.Net */
/*                         President                            */
/*                       Net Wright LLC                         */
/*                   http://www.netwright.net                   */
/*                 Voice and Fax: 307-857-1053                  */