route filtering policies (from "split b" thread)

[Mike Lieberman]

>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for your response.  Note that it isn't necessarily true
> that I have to have full internet routes on my router at home
> in order to inject a /24 via BGP to two upstream providers.

Yes I'm aware of this, but it is possible to limit this discussion to those
networks that DO have that need. Others can limp along as they do now.
>
> Note also that ARIN cannot guarantee that any block assigned
> is filtered or not filtered.  ISPs set their own policies.
> Those policies have up to this point been modified as ARIN
> and other registries have changed their allocation policies
> but there is no guarantee that that will continue to be the
> case.  There was a point in my not so distant past, where
> the filtering policies of one very large ISP were not consistent
> with ARIN policies and it made my address space unusable (and
> we had much more than a /21)

I understand this as well. The policies of various RRs can make for a
frustrating time. Still most of that can be worked through.
>
> How many requests would be generated if, say, we say any
> organization that meets your requirements below gets a /24?

I think you already have them, they just have /21's right now :-) Further if
you did a buy back program for those who have swamp addresses and could
aggregate with new addresses and use the money you get from the sale of the
/24's to support that, you might actually get more /24's back than you have
to sell.

> I suspect that you will get many many more than a "few".  I
> could be wrong, but the issue for ARIN and the other registries
> is that the take rate for some of these things is not determinable.
> Further once the policy is changed, it is almost impossible to
> change it back.

So, do the buy back first and limit the new /24's to the number of /24's you
recoup. Then there's no harm done.

> On average how many connections do you think that these folks
> would have?  (paths matter)
>
Well that gets hard to figure. Our customer is looking at going from two to
three or four. We just about signed a contract with another company earlier
this year that would have had three paths.

> Thanks,
> ---CJ
>
> Ps. and yes I might be interested in one of those /24s for my
> house.
>

Yeh, well would you accept the proposition that we are not the normal net
user?
I had two T1s to my house when your local community college had a 56K lease
line.
>
>     From: "Mike Lieberman" <Mike at netwright.net>
>     Subject: RE: route filtering policies (from "split b" thread)
>
>     > 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                  */
>
>
>