The Gorgon's Knot. Was: Re: Verio Peering Question

Fri Sep 28 23:35:43 UTC 2001

> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 23:53:45 +0100
> From: Alex Bligh <alex at alex.org.uk>
> 
> > Instead you get the revolving wheel of excuses like
> you missed:
> 4. We are not paid to accept this crap

So your downstreams pay you to connect to:

+ Your AS only;

+ Some of the Internet, but with little concern re accessibility
  of small networks;

+ The whole Internet with as much reliability as possible?

Oh, man, this is starting to sound like a peering policy
argument, in which some people believe that Internet traffic is
theoretically beneficial to both endpoints[1].  Or the reciprocal
compensation arguments that traffic is more beneficial to one
party...

[1] #include <exceptions-mentioned-by-paul-vixie.h>

I'm not arguing against filtering -- in and of itself, filtering
is good.  There's enough bad BGP and IGP-to-EGP leakage that I'd
be worried if everyone allowed /32 announcements.  But there's a
limit at the other end, too:

Maybe I'll filter anything longer than a /8... I'll also legally
my name to "!U" (pronounced "the network admin formerly known as
'Eddy Dreger') at the same time.

Eddy

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - EverQuick Internet Division
Phone: +1 (316) 794-8922 Wichita/(Inter)national
Phone: +1 (785) 865-5885 Lawrence
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 May 2001 11:23:58 +0000 (GMT)
From: A Trap <blacklist at brics.com>
To: blacklist at brics.com
Subject: Please ignore this portion of my mail signature.

These last few lines are a trap for address-harvesting spambots.  Do NOT
send mail to <blacklist at brics.com>, or you are likely to be blocked.