North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: BGP Question - how do work around pigheaded ISPs
- From: Stephen Griffin
- Date: Mon Feb 12 01:24:42 2001
In the referenced message, Craig A. Huegen said:
> These ISP's causing them to do it have no care for those costs -- but I
> can bet you those tens of thousands of dollars they'd care if they had
> to renumber every time they wanted to add a pop to their network. They
> will happily offer alternatives -- "you buy service from me and we'll
> throw those technical reasons why we won't accept those announcements
> right out the window for you".
These companies, conversely, don't care about the costs that _every other
BGP speaker in the default-free zone_ has to incur as a direct result
of their actions. Who is expected to bear the cost, the one or the many?
> There is one particular ISP who is dead-set in refusing to allow exceptions.
> I suppose it's just going to come to a head at some point, with an enterprise
> telling the customers of said ISP "sorry, call your ISP's help desk" (as
> some already do today).
That ISP is less likely to have any successful litigation against it
through sticking to their policy. Converse to your argument, ISP helpdesks
could point their customers to call the company's helpdesk for failure to
properly announce their address space. As the routing table size continues
to increase, the number of entities who filter will increase, especially
those who could better spend the upgrade costs on direct revenue generation.
While it may never happen in my lifetime, full-scale IPv6 deployment will
undoubtedly make filtering an absolute requirement.
> I've been made aware of at least 10 customers who have left said ISP after
> said customers were unable to reach certain networks.
> ...of course, that ISP will happily perform hypocritcal acts such as
> announcing their customers' blocks that violate this policy. I can
> see how some business people can't blame them, but it casts very serious
> shadows on any technical excuses as to why they won't accept them from
Now we've moved from the hypothetical to the nasty. I think the community
is better served with an open and frank discussion on prefix filters, what
is reasonable, and technical solutions to the issues or non-issues cited.
nb. I am fairly certain that I am in no way connected to the entity
referenced above, I just don't want to denigrate into an argument about
how filtering/deaggreagating is bad because so-and-so is stupid, smells
funny, and is a Nazi*.
*Godwin's Law does not apply when a Nazi reference is intentionally chosen.