nanog mailing list archives
RE: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s
From: "H. Michael Smith, Jr." <michael () awtechnologies com>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2003 23:59:37 -0400
This is a part of the problem. I realize that large ISPs are probably against micro-assignments so that they can continue to use address space to treat customers as indentured servants. I guess they can skip Chicago and just filter out any micro-assignments that ARIN may one day issue. My biggest gripe on this topic is about ISPs that assign /24's to multi-homed customers, but filter out /24's received from peers. Verio (the example of the day) accepts /24's (that they likely assigned) from customers but filters these out from others. Are they expecting their peers not to filter these /24's or do they really care? I suppose if their peers adopt filtering policies such as theirs, they can just tell their customers "We accept your /24, but the other guy is filtering it out" Michael -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Dul [mailto:andrew.dul () quark net] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 11:35 PM To: Forrest; michael () awtechnologies com Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: RE: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s Forrest, Even if ARIN passes this policy that will not make any provider change their filtering policy. It is true that many providers do use the ARIN allocation sizes to create their filtering rules but the two are not inherently linked. Any ASN can choose the filter on what ever rule set they choose. Andrew At 04:38 PM 10/15/2003 -0500, Forrest wrote:
This is just one of the many reasons why we need ARIN proposal 2002-3
to
be approved. So that small networks that wish to multihome don't have issues with networks filtering out their /24 along with all the other garbage /24's that are announced. http://www.arin.net/policy/2002_3.html If you support 2002-3 I urge you to get on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and voice your opinion. http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html Forrest -----Original Message----- From: H. Michael Smith, Jr. [SMTP:michael () awtechnologies com] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:24 PM To: 'Phil Rosenthal'; 'John Palmer' Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: RE: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s What about the /24's that many ISPs (especially tier 2-3) are assigning to multi-homed customers? What about an IX or "critical infrastructure providers" that may be issued a /24 from ARIN (Policy 2001-3)? Although it may be rare that a large aggregate would become unreachable to a "large" network, doesn't the possibility exist that a customer
with
a /24 would become unreachable (to some) due to the aggregate dropping out even though the /24 should still be reachable? That scenario may not be very likely, but the question of assymetric routing and one's ability to balance traffic become issues. Assigning a lower preference to /24's would be a lot friendlier than just throwing them away. If I am way off base, I fully expect to be corrected (with volume). My flame retardant suit is in place. Michael -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu] On Behalf Of Phil Rosenthal Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 4:47 PM To: John Palmer Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s http://info.us.bb.verio.net/routing.html#PeerFilter That's how Verio does it, and I assume, that's how most people who filter by length do it as well. --Phil On Oct 15, 2003, at 4:40 PM, John Palmer wrote:Good question. You know there are thousands of legacy /24's out there that were allocated by IANA as /24's How can you aggregate them up if all you have is the/24?To those who filter out /24's - how is this done - just by the
netmask
size? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jean-Christophe Smith" <jsmith () vitalstream com> To: <nanog () merit edu> Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 15:34 Subject: Pitfalls of annoucing /24sIn current practice would there be serious jeopardy of portions oftheinternet not being able to reach this address space due to bgp filters or other restrictions? What is the smallest acceptable block of IPs
that
can be announced without adverse or unpredictable results? Verio would most
likely be picking up these routes from us. I don't want to cause a
religious
debate, but I am interested in what the industry consensus is. I'm just doing some research, any comments would be appreciated. Thanks, Jean-Christophe Smith--Phil Rosenthal ISPrime, Inc.
Current thread:
- Re: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s, (continued)
- Re: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s Andy Ellifson (Oct 15)
- Re: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s K. Scott Bethke (Oct 15)
- RE: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s Forrest (Oct 15)
- RE: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s H. Michael Smith, Jr. (Oct 15)
- RE: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s H. Michael Smith, Jr. (Oct 15)
- RE: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s Forrest (Oct 15)
- Re: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s Marshall Eubanks (Oct 18)
- Pitfalls of _accepting_ /24s jlewis (Oct 18)
- RE: Pitfalls of _accepting_ /24s Terry Baranski (Oct 18)
- RE: Pitfalls of _accepting_ /24s Howard C. Berkowitz (Oct 18)
- Re: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s Marshall Eubanks (Oct 18)
- Re: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s Brian Bruns (Oct 18)
- RE: Pitfalls of annoucing /24s Peter E. Fry (Oct 18)