multi-homing fixes

Tue Aug 28 05:22:36 UTC 2001

On Mon, 27 Aug 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> |> If I choose to extend 
> |> that privilege
> |> to people who meet certain minimum requirements because I believe the
> |> benefits will outweight the costs, then that's *my* right. 
> 
> Please detail the exact costs of a, BGP inserted, routing table entry. Is
> it, maybe, 50 cents? Now, how much are you getting for a DS1 link? What does
> that cost, exactly, considering that an outfit capable of setting up
> multi-homing are probably the folks that your techs never hear from, but
> once a year? That appears to be a margin that is far above keystone. How
> greedy do you want to be?
> 

Roeland,  I don't think you're following the arguement here.  What he was
contending was accepting /24's into his routing tables from the global
routing table that were generated by someone ELSES microsegment BGP
speaking customer.

> |> All others can
> |> pay me to do it if they want me to. Your rights end at my network.
> 

I agree that nobody has a "right" to have their prefixes listed in my
routing tables unless they're a direct customer of mine.  Then again, it
is my obligation to my customers to show them a full view of the net and
if we're talking about microallocations vs someone carving up a CIDR block
and their customers announcing a /24 out of it, I have to accept them to
reach them unless I'm pointing default somewhere. [blah]  Small blocks
that are carved out of Carrier-X's /16 and announced as /24's don't
count.  They're reachable by the aggregate even if I don't accept the
longer prefix.

So, unless something changes, we'll be accepting /24 and shorter prefixes
from any blocks that the RIRs assign /24's from if we want to provide a
full defaultless view to our customers.

> BTW, randy's position is rather strange, coming from someone that used to
> support the FidoNet community, by being the FTSC chair.
> 

Politics change.  Business models change.  Positions change.  Not so
strange.

---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc