North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Verio Peering Question

  • From: Majdi S. Abbas
  • Date: Fri Sep 28 13:00:43 2001

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.
> 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 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