[43024] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Verio Peering Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Fri Sep 28 13:10:48 2001
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20010928125855.02e65528@127.0.0.1>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:10:08 -0400
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <20010928095710.A7249@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 09:57 AM 9/28/2001 -0700, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
> Blaming Verio for the RIR's allocation policy simply does not make
>sense.
Allow me to rephrase this slightly: Blaming the RIRs for Verio's filtering
policy simply does not make sense.
There is no reason for the RIRs to change. The system works, and works
reasonably well today. Verio's policy, if applied to Verio by Verio's
peers, would not work. (At least not from the POV of some multi-homed
Verio downstreams.)
Also, if Verio would change their filters if the RIRs changed, then all the
arguments about the Internet collapsing are inconsistent. (Unless
"workable microallocation policy" means eliminating most of the people who
currently have /24s.)
You have already stated publicly you do not understand the implications of
filtering. Perhaps you should stop trying to defend that which you do not
comprehend?
> --msa
--
TTFN,
patrick
