From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
Majdi S. Abbas
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 12:57 PM
To: Patrick W. Gilmore
Cc: nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: Verio Peering Question
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
implications of this filtering policy.
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.
Do you now understand why "filtering == forcing small providers /
businesses to single home"? If anything was not clear, please
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
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