<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2448.0">
<TITLE>RE: Long Prefix Redundancy (Was: Verio Decides what parts of the internet to drop)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<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>
</BODY>
</HTML>