<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: Long Prefix Redundancy (Was: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop)</TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The pressure is on to use co-location service only
from Big Players. Indeed, remember the big fight</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>over Exodus peering arrangements? Someone (GTE?)
decided that Exodus should pay them for transit</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>and pulled peering. since no other large network
pulled such stunt the result was that GTE customers</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>were inconvenienced more than Exodus customers.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>The message is loud and clear. If you want your
server farm to have good access, put it in a good collocation</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>facility run by a very large provider who has good
redundancy not only of their network as a whole but</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>of their colo facility (a co-lo facility with only
one WAN circuit does not have good redundancy</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>even if the LAN is exceedingly good and
fault-tolerant etc.).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dana</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A href="mailto:Derrick@anei.COM" title=Derrick@anei.COM>Derrick Bennett</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A href="mailto:'nanog@merit.edu'"
title=nanog@merit.edu>'nanog@merit.edu'</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, December 04, 1999 8:09
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: Long Prefix Redundancy (Was:
Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop)</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><BR>
<P><FONT size=2> Since we are all here at this point I would like to ask
some questions on what should be done for the small companies. I have setup
several /24's with various ISP's and have gotten them multi-homed with
secondary ISP's, setup BGP and overall things work relatively well. Now I have
always been able to go to some of the route servers and looking glass sites
and see my annoucements making it to several providers. But I have no way of
knowing that every ISP is accepting these routes and I have always beleived
that they weren't anyway. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2> Now through all this many people have asked the same
question I am asking. Companies that are being responsible and only occuping a
single class C still need redundancy and to me this is what BGP was meant to
do. What does the nanog community in general think should be done to help this
growing group of customers ? I never remember reading a FAQ anywhere that said
only large networks should get the redundancy features that have been built
into the Net.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2> </FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>And to answer the other point many of my customers would not
mind paying a fee to make their routes known. I would rather pay for proper
routing then pay for a /19 and waste space. </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>Derrick </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2>> -----Original Message-----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>
From: James Smith [<A
href="mailto:jsmith@dxstorm.com">mailto:jsmith@dxstorm.com</A>]</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>> Sent: Saturday, December 04, 1999 4:21 PM</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>> To: Travis Pugh</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Cc: Alex P.
Rudnev; nanog@merit.edu</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Subject: Re: Verio
Decides what parts of the internet to drop</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>> The unfortunate reality is that there are a lot of businesses
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> that need</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> 99.99%
reliability and uptime, but aren't big enough to get a /19.
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> My previous company
was a credit card processing gateway. If </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>
they went</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> down, their customers were
screwed. But they hadn't even </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> used a Class
C,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> so they weren't eligible for a /19 or /20 from
ARIN. </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> My point
is that the current requirement that a network must </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>> have a large</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> chunck of IP space to be
multi-homed is not ideal. According to the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>
status quo, while an e-commerce company such as a credit card </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>> processor</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> may be big in the business
world and worth millions, but </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> insignificant
on</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> the Net and left vulnerable because it can't
be multi-homed.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> --</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> James Smith,
CCNA</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Network/System Administrator</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>> DXSTORM.COM</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> <A href="http://www.dxstorm.com/"
target=_blank>http://www.dxstorm.com/</A></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> DXSTORM Inc.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> 2140
Winston Park Drive, Suite 203</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> Oakville, ON, CA
L6H 5V5 </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>> Tel: 905-829-3389 (email preferred)</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> Fax: 905-829-5692</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> 1-877-DXSTORM
(1-877-397-8676)</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> On
Sat, 4 Dec 1999, Travis Pugh wrote:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> > </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> > I've been
lurking and looking at this conversation too long </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>
... my head is</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > spinning. Alex says
there are many reasons causing people </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> to announce
B</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > nets with short prefixes, and he is
entirely right. The </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> primary one
would</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > be that a client, by some inexplicable
reasoning, expects </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> their Internet</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>> > service to be up and running reliably at least 95%
of the time.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>
> The disturbing message I have been able to glean from this
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> thread is that:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> > - If you need reliability, get a /19</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>> > - If you are a small customer, using only a /24 for
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> connectivity (and thus</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > helping to slow depletion) you are not BIG enough to expect
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> multi-path</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
reliability into your network</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > - If you are a
big provider, not only do you not have to provide a</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > consistent level of service to your customers, but you are
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> free to block</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
them (and anyone else from other providers) arbitrarily </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>> when they spend a</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > good deal of
money to augment your service with someone else's</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>
> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> > The gist of the conversation, IMO, is
that customers can't </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> have reliability</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>> > with one provider, but they will be blocked from
having </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> reliability through</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > multiple providers if their addresses happen to be in the
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> "wrong" space.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
Something's wrong with that.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> > Cheers.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> > Travis</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
Eeeevillll consultant</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>> > ----- Original Message -----</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>
> From: Alex P. Rudnev <alex@virgin.relcom.eu.net></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > To: Randy Bush <rbush@bainbridge.verio.net></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>> > Cc: <doug@safeport.com>;
<nanog@merit.edu></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > Sent: Saturday,
December 04, 1999 5:08 PM</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > Subject: Re: Verio
Decides what parts of the internet to drop</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> > </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> >
></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
> It should be your problem. You simply loss the part of </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>> connectivity...</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > ></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>> > > The real world is more complex than you drawn
below. </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> There is many reasons</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > > causing people to announce class-B networks with the
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> short prefixes.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > On Thu, 2 Dec 1999, Randy Bush
wrote:</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>
> > > Date: Thu, 02 Dec 1999 13:00:17 -0800</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > > > From: Randy Bush
<rbush@bainbridge.verio.net></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > >
To: doug@safeport.com</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > > Cc:
nanog@merit.edu</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > > Subject: Re: Verio
Decides what parts of the internet to drop</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
> ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > ></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > > > > Apparently for their convenience Verio has
decided </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> what parts of the</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > > > > Internet I can get to.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > > ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > > verio
does not accept from peers announcements of </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>
prefixes in classic b</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > > space longer
than the allocations of the regional registries.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>
> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > > we believe our
customers and the internet as a whole </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> will be
less</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > > inconvenienced by our not
listening to sub-allocation </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> prefixes than
to</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > have</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
> > major portions of the network down as has happened in
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> the past. some</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>
> here</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > > may remember the 129/8
disaster which took significant </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> portions of
the</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > net</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
> > down for up to two days.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > >
></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > > the routing databases are not
great, and many routers </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> can not handle</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>> > ACLs</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > >
big enough to allow a large to irr filter large peers. </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>> and some large</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > peers</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>> > > > do not register routes.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > > ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > > so we
and others filter at allocation boundaries and </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>>
have for a long</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > time.</FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > > > we assure you we do not do it without serious
</FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> consideration or to</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>>
> torture</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > > nanog readers.</FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>> > > ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > >
> > With no notification.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > >
></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > > verio's policy has been
constant and public.</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > ></FONT>
<BR><FONT size=2>> > > > randy</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> >
> ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > ></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > Aleksei
Roudnev,</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > > (+1 415) 585-3489 /San
Francisco CA/</FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT
size=2>> > ></FONT> <BR><FONT size=2>> > </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>> > </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> > </FONT><BR><FONT
size=2>> </FONT><BR><FONT size=2>> </FONT></P></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>