[40968] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: multi-homing fixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Fraizer)
Tue Aug 28 01:23:45 2001
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:22:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Fraizer <nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
To: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: "'David Schwartz'" <davids@webmaster.com>,
Patrick Greenwell <patrick@cybernothing.org>,
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <EA9368A5B1010140ADBF534E4D32C728069E42@condor.mhsc.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0108280114190.12773-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> |> If I choose to extend
> |> that privilege
> |> to people who meet certain minimum requirements because I believe the
> |> benefits will outweight the costs, then that's *my* right.
>
> Please detail the exact costs of a, BGP inserted, routing table entry. Is
> it, maybe, 50 cents? Now, how much are you getting for a DS1 link? What does
> that cost, exactly, considering that an outfit capable of setting up
> multi-homing are probably the folks that your techs never hear from, but
> once a year? That appears to be a margin that is far above keystone. How
> greedy do you want to be?
>
Roeland, I don't think you're following the arguement here. What he was
contending was accepting /24's into his routing tables from the global
routing table that were generated by someone ELSES microsegment BGP
speaking customer.
> |> All others can
> |> pay me to do it if they want me to. Your rights end at my network.
>
I agree that nobody has a "right" to have their prefixes listed in my
routing tables unless they're a direct customer of mine. Then again, it
is my obligation to my customers to show them a full view of the net and
if we're talking about microallocations vs someone carving up a CIDR block
and their customers announcing a /24 out of it, I have to accept them to
reach them unless I'm pointing default somewhere. [blah] Small blocks
that are carved out of Carrier-X's /16 and announced as /24's don't
count. They're reachable by the aggregate even if I don't accept the
longer prefix.
So, unless something changes, we'll be accepting /24 and shorter prefixes
from any blocks that the RIRs assign /24's from if we want to provide a
full defaultless view to our customers.
> BTW, randy's position is rather strange, coming from someone that used to
> support the FidoNet community, by being the FTSC chair.
>
Politics change. Business models change. Positions change. Not so
strange.
---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc
