mailing list archives
Re: Verio Peering Question
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 14:58:30 -0400
At 11:38 AM 9/28/2001 -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:
>I really don't see Verio being hypocritical here. Instead, I see Verio
>making a decision about what they want in their own routing table, but
>offering routes to other providers in case those other providers want to
>make a different decision. Those other providers are welcome to filter or
>accept those routes as they see fit. This seems like a simple case of
>Verio not forcing its policies on anybody else.
Except, of course, Randy has stated the reason for implementing the
filtering policy (or one of them anyway) is because the Internet will
collapse if we do not filter / stop long announcements. Since hypocrisy is
essentially saying one thing and doing another, I would say this fits the
But tell ya what, let's ignore the hypocrisy issue. I will drop it if you
Filter does not allow smaller providers and companies to multi-home. Each
network is, of course, allowed to do as they please. I encourage Verio and
Verio engineers to continue filtering if they so desire. I also encourage
all other providers to filter Verio exactly as Verio filters them.
No one would be doing anything unethical, immoral, or illegal, but somehow
I think Verio would decide it was no longer in their best interest to
filter their peers.
In fact, this is probably in the best interest of Verio's peers. It would
remove any possible advantage Verio had over their competitors when
speaking to potential customers. I know for a fact Sprint gained customers
when they were filtering *because* they filtered (it was the only way to
ensure the announcement got to Sprint). My suggestion would make the cost
higher than the benefit.
Re: Verio Peering Question Craig Pierantozzi (Sep 28)