[ppml] "Recommended Practices" procedure

Robert E.Seastrom ppml at rs.seastrom.com
Fri Jun 30 09:01:40 EDT 2006

Scott Leibrand <sleibrand at internap.com> writes:

> On 06/29/06 at 5:52pm -0400, Marshall Eubanks <tme at multicasttech.com> wrote:
>> Hello;
>> On Jun 29, 2006, at 4:53 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>> > I'm sorry, I made an unstated assumption that you're buying transit
>> > from two transit providers who don't have any transit providers of
>> > their own, just peers.  IOW, tier 1 NSPs.  Can you enumerate any
>> > failure modes in that case, or were you just talking about
>> > reachability problems for tier 2 NSPs?
>> I think that any policy that relies on distinguishing between Tier 1 and
>> Tier 2 should be automatically out of bounds. Every time the subject
>> comes up on (say) NANOG it generates much heat but little light, and I
>> know of no tool to enable me to check independently whether or not a
>> salesman's claims here are accurate.
> I'm not proposing a policy, I'm proposing text for a "Recommended
> Practices" document.  If we want to eliminate the "distinction" between a
> transit-buying and transit-free transit provider (which IMO is a valid
> technical distinction, egos, tier labels, and salesmen aside), then you
> simply need to expand the recommendation to say something like this:
> To multihome with PA space, you must ensure that your transit providers,
> and any of their transit providers (recursive), accept your /48 from each
> other.
> Still pretty simple, no?

There's an implicit assumption here that peers (as opposed to upstream
transits) do not filter.  History has shown counting on this to be unwise.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list