Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop

Alex P. Rudnev alex at
Sat Dec 4 22:22:17 UTC 1999

The memory for the routing tables was a deal just about 2 years ago; this
became easier to maintain big tables today (when routers can be easily upgraded
to 256 MB RAM). And from my point of view, the address space conservation is
just much more important than preventing extra /19 or /20 routes to exist in the
global Internet.

You surely use plenty of money to improve throughput, not the routing tables


On Fri, 3 Dec 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:

> Date: Fri, 3 Dec 1999 09:19:14 -0800
> From: Roeland M.J. Meyer <rmeyer at>
> To: 'Randy Bush' <randy at>, 'Tony Li' <tony1 at>
> Cc: nanog at
> Subject: RE: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
> That depends. Many operators of /24s would be happy to pay, within reason.
> This would provide plenty of cash to upgrade routers. Right now I am looking
> at ~$1000/Gbps from various colo providers, for a site that is expected to
> go over 1Tbps (Yes, that's a Tera-bit per second), in 18 months. The site,
> with Dev/QA/Stage/Production, could easily burn a /24, but no more than
> that. (One of our requirements is a provider with LOTS of dark-fiber and
> cold-potato routing, as a result.) We are looking into distributing the load
> geographically, which also covers Big-D disasters. Now we have a
> multi-homeing problem unless we use the same provider in both locations.
> Business-wise, this is not acceptable, to be locked-in, in this way.
> Considering the amount of money involved, do you still doubt that my client
> would be willing to pay reasonable fees, to announce their /24? Don't you
> think that the presence of this cash would cover the check? We've already
> established that the only technical issue is the capital expense ($cash$)
> required to upgrade backbone routers.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-nanog at [mailto:owner-nanog at]On Behalf Of
> > Randy Bush
> > Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 5:20 AM
> > To: Tony Li
> > Cc: nanog at
> > Subject: Re: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop
> >
> >
> >
> > > Wouldn't it be nice if backbones got around to simply charging for
> > > annoucements and quit this arbitrary filtering?
> >
> > thanks geoff. :-)
> >
> > and how would charging for announcements have ameliorated the 129/8
> > disaster?  ahhh,  when they tried to announce those 50k /24s,
> > the check
> > would have bounced!
> >
> > randy
> >

Aleksei Roudnev,
(+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/

More information about the NANOG mailing list