204.82.160.0/22 invisible

Mon Sep 25 04:40:32 UTC 1995

>Kai, it looks like Sprint is announcing this route. If you are a Sprint 
>customer, I don't recall Sprint saying anything about filtering its own 
>advertisements, either on NANOG or CIDRD.

>Also, this is a typo, and it should be 206.82.160/22, no? Sean didn't say 
>anything about filtering 204/N either.

>-dorian

Correct. I have other networks in 204, so above was a typo. Also correct:
he (rather cryptically) said Sprint wouldn't filter outgoing (hence
customer-owned) routes, but he encouraged OTHER providers to do it like
Sprint: filter incoming routes by the rules anounced: this has the same
effect, but now Sean could point at Digex (should they employ such a
filter) "I didn't do it, man!"...

This was not the right way to enforce the relevant RFCs, what's an RFC worth
that even the Internic doesn't obey ? And , I beg everyone's pardon: I have
only read the NANOG list for a few weeks now, could not make it to nearby
Pittsburgh,PA (did this topic surface?) due to work pertinent to just this
event, but I NEVER heard of this imminent route prefix filtering until now.

Given the anti-trust questions this entire issue raises, I don't see a very
bright future for the landscape of network operators at this time: 
If you are small, you can only get a small network assignment (slow start),
as you will be running into the Great Wall "Internic" even with a request
for a /22, and if you really succeed with your /22 or /20 assignment,
you will have to discover that the conspiracy of the big 6 (laugh!) might
have decided you are not worthy, and to go route what you got to yourself
and don't expect them even wanting to know about it. If, on the other hand,
you bravely get your network assignment from your friendly network provider,
once you change this very provider, you are told you can't take the networks
you got with you to the new provider, or in the event you are going multi-home
(foreseeable for MANY larger Web/Slip/PPP-outfits in the next 6-9 months),
you aren't allowed (or outright can't) announce those networks via the
additional connection, too.

I remember a time when 800 numbers belonged to the LD carriers, who had
ranges of them assigned/reserved with the "800 number authority" ,
BellCore. What's left of those ? The lawyers came, technology came, and
swept these anti-competitive practises away, and given the changes in
switching/routing of telephony switches that were required to allow
800-number portability, I stop to see the 'impossibilitee' of getting just
the same together for IP networks. Either we change, or the lawyers will
change us, and I feel there is no longer a choice.
Changing your network provider with all your attached networks shall be
no less painful then changing the LD carrier on your residential telephone
line, and this is exactly what even small/mid-sized (16-64 class-C
net-strong) providers want. 
The steps we see now, are exactly the opposite of this (we won't see nice
auto-configuring IPv6 networks for years!), which is deeply troubling to
anyone who has ever read anti-trust decisions.

If it takes a first stone to be thrown, or a walk with the iron cross,
count me in, for the better of us all.

---
Kai Schlichting
Internet Project Manager, BelCom, Inc.
515 Madison Ave Suite 2100
NY,NY 10022
212-705-9500 (voice)
212-755-0864 (fax)
kai at belcom.net
                Ask us about Internet service in the CIS!
                 Bringing Internet, where there is none