Verio Peering Question

Fri Sep 28 18:58:30 UTC 2001

At 11:38 AM 9/28/2001 -0700, Steve Gibbard wrote:

 >I really don't see Verio being hypocritical here.  Instead, I see Verio
 >making a decision about what they want in their own routing table, but
 >offering routes to other providers in case those other providers want to
 >make a different decision.  Those other providers are welcome to filter or
 >accept those routes as they see fit.  This seems like a simple case of
 >Verio not forcing its policies on anybody else.

Except, of course, Randy has stated the reason for implementing the 
filtering policy (or one of them anyway) is because the Internet will 
collapse if we do not filter / stop long announcements.  Since hypocrisy is 
essentially saying one thing and doing another, I would say this fits the 
definition nicely.

But tell ya what, let's ignore the hypocrisy issue.  I will drop it if you 
will.

Filter does not allow smaller providers and companies to multi-home.  Each 
network is, of course, allowed to do as they please.  I encourage Verio and 
Verio engineers to continue filtering if they so desire.  I also encourage 
all other providers to filter Verio exactly as Verio filters them.

No one would be doing anything unethical, immoral, or illegal, but somehow 
I think Verio would decide it was no longer in their best interest to 
filter their peers.

In fact, this is probably in the best interest of Verio's peers.  It would 
remove any possible advantage Verio had over their competitors when 
speaking to potential customers.  I know for a fact Sprint gained customers 
when they were filtering *because* they filtered (it was the only way to 
ensure the announcement got to Sprint).  My suggestion would make the cost 
higher than the benefit.

 >-Steve

--
TTFN,
patrick