[50359] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: verio arrogance
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Griffin)
Fri Jul 26 21:34:26 2002
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207181443040.26371-100000@cpu1693.adsl.bellglobal.com> from Ralph Doncaster at "Jul 18, 2002 02:45:35 pm"
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 21:34:03 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stephen Griffin <stephen.griffin@rcn.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In the referenced message, Ralph Doncaster said:
>
> > That said, their current policy of refusing to accept de-aggregated
> > prefixes from peers (while accepting such from paying customers) makes
> > perfect sense, IMHO. Not arrogant, just a smart & reasonable business
> > decision.
>
> I have one downstream ISP customer that explicitly asked for "full BGP
> routes" to be written into the contract. Why Verio's customer's wouldn't
> want full routes makes no business sense to me.
>
> However a NANOG list subscriber was kind enough to help me get past
> Verio's NOC monkeys and get their filters updated to allow my
> announcements.
>
> -Ralph
Accepting any route from anyone doesn't make much business sense to
me. At least if you are interested in a quality network. If you'ld
like, I'm sure multiple ISPs would be happy to send you all of their
/32s.
Verio's policy seems like a very responsible way to run a network.
I'm saddened that more folks don't do filtering based upon RiR policy.
Not announcing your largest aggregates is just plain stupid. If your
peers are willing to accept more-specifics tagged no-export, with MEDs,
then go for it, but the rest of us don't need them.
I'm a little disappointed in Verio, if they really did decide to accept
your unneccessarily deaggregated prefixes.
