[ppml] Policy to help the little guys

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jo Rhett [mailto:jrhett at svcolo.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:28 PM
> To: Ted Mittelstaedt
> Cc: 'David Williamson'; 'Randy Bush'; 'arin ppml'
> Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy to help the little guys
> 
> 
> On Mar 20, 2008, at 12:21 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> > So, is this policy discussion actually solving a real 
> problem, or are 
> > we all doing someone's theoretical CCIE homework question for them?
> 
> Not all big (or small) iron vendors do well with not using 
> memory for  
> refused routes.  One of those is the largest deployed vendor with no  
> caps in their name.
> 
> So your small guy may have a filter to drop anything longer than a / 
> 24, but it's still eating up memory in his unit.  Unless the 
> upstream  
> is willing to filter it for him,

Why exactly would a skilled "small guy ISP" who is running, for the
sake of example, a Cisco 7206 non-VXR with an NPE 100 running IOS
version 11.1  (I'm just thinking of something really nasty and restrictive)
and multihoming with it, be willing to purchase bandwidth from upstream
feeds too lazy to bother putting route filters into their circuits to him?

The last time we bought bandwidth I had to argue with the salesguy
to get them to understand we wanted a full unrestricted table sent to us.
By default, they filtered their outgoing table at the /24 boundary,
and that was just the beginning, they sent a worksheet listing all of
the default filters they put in additionally to this.

Yes I guess there's networks out there who are still in the Dark
Ages.  I would submit that when the fertilizer impacts the rotating
air-moving device that they and their customers will get a very
rapid education in the Correct Way to do things.  And if they and
their customers are too incompetent to understand what is going
on, they will go bankrupt and the rest of us will be well rid of them.

So, my question still stands - are we discussing theory or practice?

Ted