Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop

Sun Dec 5 04:56:46 UTC 1999

Agreed - At this point, even an extra 50K routes would be well within the
limits of almost every provider's BGP speaking routers. Preserving the
integrity of the IP address allocation process means NOT penalizing folks
who want to use the smallest possible block for their multihomed
enterprise. We must recognize that the paradigm for multihomed sites has
changed in the last two years, from just ISPs and extremely large
enterprises, to smaller electronic commerce businesses. Internet access
has gone from being a luxury, to being a utility. 

As a practical stand, almost every ISP that has space in the old Class B
space, also has CIDR space where /24s are almost universally routed. So,
the e-commerce concern can always ask for some of the latter. The
question is, why draw the distinction at this point? Networks should
aggregate as many routes as possible, of course, but why penalize folks
who don't wish to be wedded to the outdated concept of a class b network
block?

It's not like we're using 2501s with 16MB anymore...

--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel L. Golding        *  Senior Network Engineer
Network Engineering      *  Mindspring Enterprises
dgolding at mindspring.net  * 
--------------------------------------------------------------

On Sun, 5 Dec 1999, Alex P. Rudnev wrote:

> 
> 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
> limits.
> 
> Alex.
> 
> 
> 
> 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 mhsc.com>
> > To: 'Randy Bush' <randy at psg.com>, 'Tony Li' <tony1 at home.net>
> > Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> > 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 merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog at merit.edu]On Behalf Of
> > > Randy Bush
> > > Sent: Friday, December 03, 1999 5:20 AM
> > > To: Tony Li
> > > Cc: nanog at merit.edu
> > > 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/
> 
> 