Sprint's filtering

Thu Oct 8 14:44:28 UTC 1998

On Wed, Oct 07, 1998 at 04:07:17PM -0700, David R. Conrad wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> >if you have some *facts* to present, please
> >feel free to send them my way.
> 
> Fact:  the existence of documented filters imposed by Sprint was and is
> used by the Internet registries (well, at least one I'm positive about) to
> discourage the allocation of provider independent prefixes.
> 
> Did this "save the Internet"?  First, you have to figure out what it means
> for the Internet not to be "saved".  In this context, I'd argue it would
> mean portions of the Internet would become unreachable because routers
> couldn't handle the routing load.  The Internet would not have collapsed --
> service providers would take whatever steps they felt necessary to provide
> the highest level of service they were able to please the largest portion
> of their customers.  In practice, I suspect this would mean they would (you
> guessed it) filter out long prefixes.  
> 
> So the question really is, did Sprint's filters reduce the rate of growth
> of the Internet routing system.  Clearly, given the registries did not
> allocate some prefixes they would have had otherwise, the answer is yes.
> Would the Internet have partitioned if Sprint didn't impose the filters?
> Dunno.  I do know that the number of provider independent prefixes at least
> one registry allocated dropped significantly after the filters were turned on.
> 
> Regards,
> -drc

Balderdash. The cost of a few SIMMs in routers pales beyond the market
damage that comes from not being able to get where your customers want to
go.

Protecting provider's hardware budgets is not part of a registry's job.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl at denninger.net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl
I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give
up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.