Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog 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 definition nicely.

But tell ya what, let's ignore the hypocrisy issue. I will drop it if you will.


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.


>-Steve

--
TTFN,
patrick


  By Date           By Thread  

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