Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Verio Peering Question
From: "Majdi S. Abbas" <msa () samurai sfo dead-dog com>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 09:57:10 -0700


On Fri, Sep 28, 2001 at 12:31:53PM -0400, Patrick W. Gilmore wrote:
Then again, I can see from below that you obviously do not understand the 
implications of this filtering policy.
-snip-
Because of my small need for IP space, none of the IP registries will give 
me my own /20 (or whatever).  However, ARIN will not complain if one of my 
upstreams SWIPs a /24 to me, even if I do not require an entire /24.  I 
announce that /24 to both my upstreams.

If that /24 is filtered by all backbones, my second connection to the 
Internet is essentially useless, a waste of money.
-snip-
Do you now understand why "filtering == forcing small providers / 
businesses to single home"?  If anything was not clear, please contact me 
off list and I shall try to explain further.

        Actually, it seems to me that your argument is that ARIN/RIPE/APNIC
policy prevents people from multihoming.  In the past, when new allocations
have been opened or allocation policy has been redefined (say, from /19 to
/20), Verio's filters have changed accordingly.

        If the regional registry's policy is the problem, fix that policy,
and I think that you'd find Verio's filters would also change.  Randy has
stated on more than one occaision (back when he worked for Verio) that he
would listen to loose /24's within the proper ranges if the registrys 
would develop a workable microallocation policy.

        Blaming Verio for the RIR's allocation policy simply does not make
sense.

        --msa


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]