[ppml] Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship

[Forrest]

On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Alec H. Peterson wrote:

> --On Friday, February 28, 2003 8:53 AM -0600 Forrest 
> <forrest at almighty.c64.org> wrote:
> 
> >
> > If every backbone network filtered out my multihomed /24, how exactly
> > would this only be a reduced benefit to my multihoming?  This would be a
> > complete waste of time for me.  When packets destined for me hit a
> > defaultless router, where do you think the packet is going to go?  Toward
> > the ISP that has the large aggregate, which I have lost connectivity with.
> 
> I know exactly what would happen, and you are exactly right.
> 
> But there is more to the Internet than just you and your company, and the 
> attitude that you are only considering your needs and not the needs of the 
> rest of the Internet is somewhat disappointing.
> 

So basically what you're saying then is that to "deserve" to be multihomed 
and be reatchable, you must be a large company/ISP/whatever.  Screw the 
little guy, we didn't need to talk to him anyway.  Where exactly do you 
draw the line?  Why not take it a step further and just filter out 
everything longer than an /8 in the old Class A space.  Hey, who needs to 
hear your /16 announcement out of the 12.0.0.0/8 block anyway.  AT&T has 
the entire /8 so you'll still be reachable.  In fact, lets just change the 
minimum allocation to /8 and then we'll never have to worry about routing 
table growth ever again.  

Forrest