mailing list archives
Re: multi-homing fixes
From: Pete Kruckenberg <pete () kruckenberg com>
Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2001 17:19:47 -0600 (MDT)
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Randy Bush wrote:
I agree that there is no 'right' to have a route in someone else's router.
Different providers, different policies etc. etc. However, if I choose to
filter on allocation boundaries but advertise prefixes to peers that I
myself would filter based on my own policy is that considered
hypocritical? Bad form? Acceptable?
normal business. you're doing that for which folk PAY you.
Curious that this entire discussion is justified by
delivering what your customers pay you for, when what is
proposed couldn't be further from that.
If this is about what customers pay for, then we would be
disussing how to accommodate, and even encourage effective
multi-homing at a more granular level. Customers pay for the
network to work end-to-end. More choices mean better
performance, more reliability. The entire premise for this
discussion goes directly against that.
Let me guess, this /is/ for the good of the users, because
if we don't do it the world will blow up with too many
routes. Uh huh. And everyone is turning down customers who
want to multi-home a /24.
I pay my network providers to reach all those multi-homed
/24's quickly and reliably. Filtering devalues your network,
I buy from your non-filtering competitor instead. BTW, your
sales people (if you are a major carrier) are salivating
over my RFP. Your CEO sweats bullets over next quarter's
numbers. Filtering /24's doesn't seem important to them.
Where did the 'you don't pay me, so you can't use my route
table' argument come from? A multi-organizational,
ubiquitous, globally-reachable, resilient network presumes
that the majority of routes in my router are /not/ my
customers, and /that's/ why the network is valuable.
I'm not saying there isn't a problem, or that we shouldn't
be doing anything about it. But it's one thing to talk about
the problem (technology needs to improve to allow
individuals and small companies to have better reliability),
and quite another for networks to be hypocritically
preaching/enforcing the 'pay or be filtered' principle while
violating the principle themselves.