Re: Verio Peering Question

[Marshall Eubanks <tme () 21rst-century com>]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Sean M. Doran wrote:
>
> > let me say that not only
> > am I a strong supporter of filtering, I have also suggested
> > fairly seriously to some registry-types that it is fair to allocate
> > individual /32s as necessary to contain address consumption.
>
> So how is this supposed to work? For instance, I get a /27 and an AS
> number, and I want to multihome. But nobody will listen to my
> announcements. This is not a workable solution.

Hello;

   I actually have some information on this - look at
http://www.multicasttech.com/status/cidr.html and
http://www.multicasttech.com/status/histogram.cidr.bgp

Of the announcements we receive (we are multihomed to 3 ISP's, but not to Verio),
57.6 % of the prefixes are /24's, and about 1/2 of these are holes in another address block.
Presumably, the other 1/2 are mostly /24's from the swamp. So, a Verio like filtering policy would
filter out about 1/2 of the /24's (a little more, actually) and leave the rest.

This seems somewhat arbitrary to me. By contrast, only ~ 0.1% of the announcements are /25's or longer.
SO, in the spirit of setting the speed limit at the speed people actually drive, I would suggest
that a reasonable solution would be to admit up to /24's.

I know that this will not be an entirely popular opinion.

--
                                 Regards
                                 Marshall Eubanks

> It is possible to take the position that the responsibility of the ISPs to
> filter and the responsibility of the RIRs to assign are completely
> unrelated, but that only holds in theory. In practice, people want to get
> addresses they can use and use the addresses they can get. So there should
> be a reasonable overlap.
>
> Multihomers generally announce just a single route and there are less than
> 25k AS numbers so the majority of routes is NOT from multihomers so it
> seems somewhat harsh to effectively forbid multihoming.
>
> But while we're all discussing drafts on multi6, the routing table is
> still growing so some filtering should be expected. Is there really no way
> we can all agree on a filtering policy that keeps the routing table in
> check but still leaves some room for responsible multihoming?
>
> For instance: each AS gets to announce either a single route (regardless
> of prefix size) or only RIR-allocation-sized blocks.
>
> (The problem with this is that you can't make a reasonably sized filter
> that enforces this policy, so you would have to trust your peers to some
> degree.)
>
> > That is, the registries are correctly focusing on that resource-management,
> > and should spend energies on reclaiming wasted space (hello MIT!)
> > rather than on managing multiple scarce resources.
>
> IP address space is only a scarce resource because it is allocated in huge
> chunks. If we would be able to re-allocate individual un-used IP
> addresses, we wouldn't run out for a _very_ long time.
>
> Iljitsch van Beijnum







T.M. Eubanks
Multicast Technologies, Inc
10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410
Fairfax, Virginia 22030
Phone : 703-293-9624       Fax     : 703-293-9609
e-mail : tme () multicasttech com
http://www.on-the-i.com

Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/
 Check the status of multicast in real time :
 http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html