[ppml] Just say *NO* to PI space -- or how to make it lessdestructive

[David Williamson]

On Thu, Apr 20, 2006 at 03:12:27PM -0400, Jason Schiller (schiller at uu.net) wrote:
> But what about all the other transit providers in the DFZ?  are you also
> paying them to carry your prefix as well?  What about all of their down
> stream customers that carry a full routing table, are you going to pay
> them as well to cary your prefix? 

I completely agree that this is a troublesome problem.  I see two
solutions:  fix the underlying problem such that routing slots aren't a
limited commodity (admittedly a hard problem), or change business
practices towards more asymmetric peering arrangements (not necessarily
any easier).  If an ISP accepts a lot of PI routes, perhaps their
peering partners should ask for a slice of that pie.

It's perhaps worth noting that this problem impacts holders of PI space
that are default free.  My site, for example, looks like a small ISP
except for one key point: we don't offer any transit.  This makes me
very symapthetic to the point you raise.  Still, our business can't
afford to get locked into space held by an organization that may or may
not be well aligned with our business plans (now, or three years from
now).  We'll also consume that routing slot anyway, when we announce
the /48 (I assume) from ISP #1.  Of course, you can ignore it easier,
since there is, in theory, an aggregate...but then we're dependant on
ISP #1 not sucking.  Ever.  That's unlikely, and not acceptable.  If
shim6 actually worked...oh, never mind.

The point I was trying to make is that the use of transit services to
differentiate who should receive PA space (and therefore be allowed to
consume a routing slot) seems flawed.

-David