[40971] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: multi-homing fixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Craig Pierantozzi)
Tue Aug 28 01:51:48 2001
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 01:51:10 -0400
From: Craig Pierantozzi <tozz@user1.bind.com>
To: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010828015110.A47967@user1.bind.com>
Reply-To: tozz@bind.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <NOEJJDACGOHCKNCOGFOMIEBIDIAA.davids@webmaster.com>; from davids@webmaster.com on Mon, Aug 27, 2001 at 08:51:40PM -0700
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
* Thus spake David Schwartz (davids@webmaster.com):
[snip]
> The quesetion is bogus, there is no such thing as a right to have a route
> in my router without paying me for it. 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. All others can
> pay me to do it if they want me to. Your rights end at my network.
>
> DS
I agree that there is no 'right' to have a route in someone else's router.
Different providers, different policies etc. etc. However, if I choose
to filter on allocation boundaries but advertise prefixes to peers that
I myself would filter based on my own policy is that considered
hypocritical? Bad form? Acceptable? Just wondering aloud.
