[ppml] NANOG IPv4 Exhaustion BoF

[David Conrad]

John,

On Mar 7, 2008, at 8:47 AM, John Curran wrote:
> The ISP's who try not to pollute end up having to reject the

> new customer, and then again not accept their route when
> another ISP takes up the same customer.  The ISP who
> takes the customer and tries to route them to the peers
> gets the revenue and simply redirects any connectivity
> blame to the well-behaved ISP for 'needlessly' filtering.

Yeah, and?  The "well-behaved" ISP is receiving no revenue from the  
customer that went to the "badly-behaved" ISP so redirected blame will  
fall on deaf ears. The Internet gripe ratio goes up.  Not a big deal  
as far as I can tell.

> (This, btw, is mirrors the dialog that went down during
> some of the earlier peering/filtering ISP wars...)

And if I remember correctly, the fact that a few ISPs actually  
implemented filters were sufficient to help drive the solution that  
kept everybody's routers from falling over.  I'm not sure I understand  
why you think this won't happen again.

ISPs already filter.  ISPs that continue to use old hardware that  
maxes out around 240K routes are reportedly filtering somewhat  
aggressively.  ISPs I've spoken with have said they'll do what they  
need to when they need to if their routers are about to fall over. I  
guess I'm just not smart enough to see why ISPs would threaten their  
own infrastructures just so somebody else's customers can gain  
connectivity.

Regards,
-drc