Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop

[James Smith <jsmith () dxstorm com>]

The unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of businesses that need
99.99% reliability and uptime, but aren't big enough to get a /19.  

My previous company was a credit card processing gateway.  If they went
down, their customers were screwed.  But they hadn't even used a Class C,
so they weren't eligible for a /19 or /20 from ARIN.  

My point is that the current requirement that a network must have a large
chunck of IP space to be multi-homed is not ideal.  According to the
status quo, while an e-commerce company such as a credit card processor
may be big in the business world and worth millions, but insignificant on
the Net and left vulnerable because it can't be multi-homed.


--
James Smith, CCNA
Network/System Administrator
DXSTORM.COM

http://www.dxstorm.com/

DXSTORM Inc.
2140 Winston Park Drive, Suite 203
Oakville, ON, CA L6H 5V5         
Tel:   905-829-3389 (email preferred)
Fax:  905-829-5692
1-877-DXSTORM (1-877-397-8676)

On Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Travis Pugh wrote:

> I've been lurking and looking at this conversation too long ... my head is
> spinning.  Alex says there are many reasons causing people to announce B
> nets with short prefixes, and he is entirely right.  The primary one would
> be that a client, by some inexplicable reasoning, expects their Internet
> service to be up and running reliably at least 95% of the time.
>
> The disturbing message I have been able to glean from this thread is that:
>
> - If you need reliability, get a /19
> - If you are a small customer, using only a /24 for connectivity (and thus
> helping to slow depletion) you are not BIG enough to expect multi-path
> reliability into your network
> - If you are a big provider, not only do you not have to provide a
> consistent level of service to your customers, but you are free to block
> them (and anyone else from other providers) arbitrarily when they spend a
> good deal of money to augment your service with someone else's
>
> The gist of the conversation, IMO, is that customers can't have reliability
> with one provider, but they will be blocked from having reliability through
> multiple providers if their addresses happen to be in the "wrong" space.
> Something's wrong with that.
>
> Cheers.
>
> Travis
> Eeeevillll consultant
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alex P. Rudnev <alex () virgin relcom eu net>
> To: Randy Bush <rbush () bainbridge verio net>
> Cc: <doug () safeport com>; <nanog () merit edu>
> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 5:08 PM
> Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
>
>
> > It should be your problem. You simply loss the part of connectivity...
> >
> > The real world is more complex than you drawn below. There is many reasons
> > causing people to announce class-B networks with the short prefixes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Randy Bush wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 13:00:17 -0800
> > > From: Randy Bush <rbush () bainbridge verio net>
> > > To: doug () safeport com
> > > Cc: nanog () merit edu
> > > Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
> > >
> > >
> > > > Apparently for their convenience Verio has decided what parts of the
> > > > Internet I can get to.
> > >
> > > verio does not accept from peers announcements of prefixes in classic b
> > > space longer than the allocations of the regional registries.
> > >
> > > we believe our customers and the internet as a whole will be less
> > > inconvenienced by our not listening to sub-allocation prefixes than to
> have
> > > major portions of the network down as has happened in the past.  some
> here
> > > may remember the 129/8 disaster which took significant portions of the
> net
> > > down for up to two days.
> > >
> > > the routing databases are not great, and many routers can not handle
> ACLs
> > > big enough to allow a large to irr filter large peers.  and some large
> peers
> > > do not register routes.
> > >
> > > so we and others filter at allocation boundaries and have for a long
> time.
> > > we assure you we do not do it without serious consideration or to
> torture
> > > nanog readers.
> > >
> > > > With no notification.
> > >
> > > verio's policy has been constant and public.
> > >
> > > randy
> >
> > Aleksei Roudnev,
> > (+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/