On Thu, 22 Nov 2001, Joe Abley wrote:
On Thu, Nov 22, 2001 at 07:01:00PM +1300, Andy Linton wrote:
But at the most recent IETF in London in August there was a very clear call from the IAB to major providers to start filtering on allocation boundaries.
Which affects real-world operators how, exactly? :)
It may not. But on the other hand, you indicated that Verio do filtering, what if others decide it's in their interests as well? I'm only trying to say that there are risks and that people should try to understand the whole picture without just saying "Oh good I've got some address space I can use". And I think that's why Drew asked the question which is a lot more than many do.
There *are* some legitimate reasons. They could be multi-homing, for example, and trying to avoid the mess of long-prefix prefixes being advertised alongside covering supernets; they could be hosting a prominent nameserver, for which renumbering presents arguably as big a stability threat to the network as the addition of a single prefix in the default-free zone.
I agree but I'd have to ask if someone is hosting a prominent nameserver that's about to cross the Tasman then they've probably got other stability issues! But see my comments above.
On the other hand, I have yet to meet a transit provider who would choose idealist conservation of BGP state over customer dollars :)
So all the more reason for those on the edge to "do the right thing!" (:-)
Still, today it is nobody's business but individual ISPs to dictate what filtering policy should be put in place, and the largest ISPs on the planet do not filter according to RIR allocation boundaries.
In pragmatic terms you're right. I'd just encourage people to think about what they should ask those sluttish upstream ISPs to do. (:-) - To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz where the body of your message reads: unsubscribe nznog