David Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not only would this increase the size of the global routing table, but this
would actually decrease reliability for most basement multihomers. Basement
multihomers tend to flap their routes more often than their upstreams. By not
being inside a
I was also curious about this - if I am a customer who wants to
multihome and can justify only a /24, I would go to an ISP which has an
allocation from the Class C space rather than one from the Class A
space.
It doesn't matter. For all practical purposes, basement multihomers
comments inline
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:36:39PM -0600, Forrest wrote:
I was also curious about this - if I am a customer who wants to
multihome and can justify only a /24, I would go to an ISP which has an
allocation from the Class C space rather than one from the Class A
space.
]
Subject: Re: FW: /8s and filtering
comments inline
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:36:39PM -0600, Forrest wrote:
I was also curious about this - if I am a customer who wants to
multihome and can justify only a /24, I would go to an ISP which
has an
allocation from the Class C space rather than
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, N wrote:
comments inline
If you're a smaller organization, perhaps you'll only have a /23 from your
upstream provider. With the filtering that seems to be in place, it seems
like the only way you can truly multihome with a /23 is if it happens to
be in the
are a network of any particular size,
ARIN ratified a policy that allows multihoming as justification for a
/24.
-ej
-Original Message-
From: N [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:01 PM
To: Forrest
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: /8s and filtering
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:36:39 -0600 (CST), Forrest wrote:
Maybe I'm missing something, but what good would it do for someone to
multihome if only their own providers accept their route, but nobody else
does? I realize that their block should be still announced with their
ISP's larger aggregate,
multihoming as justification for a
/24.
-ej
-Original Message-
From: N [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:01 PM
To: Forrest
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: /8s and filtering
comments inline
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:36:39PM
: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:15 PM
To: Ejay Hire
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FW: /8s and filtering
Hello,
No, this is not the case. I enquired and it seems multihoming is not a
justification for a /24 in any RIR.
Does a network have to be able to fully utilize a /26 (25% of /24) in
order
To: Forrest
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: /8s and filtering
comments inline
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:36:39PM -0600, Forrest wrote:
I was also curious about this - if I am a customer who wants to
multihome and can justify only a /24, I would go
--On Tuesday, December 10, 2002 13:08 -0600 Ejay Hire [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Having a /24 doesn't indicate you are a network of any particular size,
ARIN ratified a policy that allows multihoming as justification for a
/24.
I am not aware of ARIN taking such action.
To which policy are
--On Tuesday, December 10, 2002 13:08 -0600 Ejay Hire [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Having a /24 doesn't indicate you are a network of any particular size,
ARIN ratified a policy that allows multihoming as justification for a
/24.
I was thinking about PI space. ARIN did in fact ratify a policy
: FW: /8s and filtering
comments inline
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:36:39PM -0600, Forrest wrote:
I was also curious about this - if I am a customer who wants to
multihome and can justify only a /24, I would go to an ISP which
has an
allocation from the Class C space
ratified a policy that allows multihoming as justification for a
/24.
-ej
-Original Message-
From: N [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:01 PM
To: Forrest
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: /8s and filtering
comments
.
-Original Message-
From: Alec H. Peterson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:34 PM
To: Ejay Hire; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FW: /8s and filtering
--On Tuesday, December 10, 2002 13:08 -0600 Ejay Hire
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Having a /24 doesn't indicate you
are a network of any particular size,
ARIN ratified a policy that allows multihoming as justification for a
/24.
-ej
-Original Message-
From: N [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:01 PM
To: Forrest
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: /8s and filtering
comments inline
Hello,
The policy says that a /24 of PA space can be given if the
customer can show that it has an immediate requirement of 25% of the
/24 = /26.
That is the reason I asked if the multihomer has to be able to fully
utilize a /26=25% of /24 to be able to multihome.
Thanks,
Harsha.
On Tue, 10
To: Alec H. Peterson
Cc: Ejay Hire; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FW: /8s and filtering
Hello,
The policy says that a /24 of PA space can be given if the
customer can show that it has an immediate requirement of 25% of the
/24 = /26.
That is the reason I asked if the multihomer has to be able
--On Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:41 -0800 Harsha Narayan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
The policy says that a /24 of PA space can be given if the
customer can show that it has an immediate requirement of 25% of the
/24 = /26.
Policy 2001-2 was ratified recently, which is separate and
reassignment from their upstream ISP,
regardless of host requirements
-ej
-Original Message-
From: Harsha Narayan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 1:41 PM
To: Alec H. Peterson
Cc: Ejay Hire; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: FW: /8s and filtering
Hello,
The policy
Hello,
Now I am confused because I have got two sets of contradicting answers.
Some say that anyone can multihome, some say that you need to be of a
certain minimum size to multihome. May I know what is the right answer?
I agree that allowing anyone to multihome would increase the
My original question was how does this interact with the filtering
policies - especially when the Class C space is used up - there are only
three /8s left there.
Harsha.
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
--On Tuesday, December 10, 2002 11:41 -0800 Harsha Narayan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hello,
No, this is not the case. I enquired and it seems multihoming is not a
justification for a /24 in any RIR.
Does a network have to be able to fully utilize a /26 (25% of /24) in
order to multihome?
Harsha.
You do err, not knowing the scripture.
To
Hello,
Thank you very much everyone for all your replies. When Class C space
gets used up, wouldn't the filtering policies have to change to allow the
same kind of multihoming from the Class A space. Currently, a /24 from
Class C is enough to get past filters. However later, a /22 (or is it
2) Small multihomers must get the ISP that assigns them address space to
allocate them at least a /24 (with multihoming as the justification if
needed). The ISP must agree to allow them to advertise their allocation
through other providers and must agree to hear and announce the block
On Tue, Dec 10, 2002 at 12:45:42PM -0800, Harsha Narayan wrote:
2) Small multihomers must get the ISP that assigns them address space to
allocate them at least a /24 (with multihoming as the justification if
needed). The ISP must agree to allow them to advertise their allocation
Well, you can't easily multihome when announcing /23 or shorter but /24
will work fine for multihoming and that is why ARIN passed that policy.
What is true, however, is that some isps will filter even /24s on their
router, but in that case, there would still be a route to your netblock
from
Now, however, that ARIN is discussing proposals such as 2002-5, 2002-6 and
2002-7 (with 2002-5 2002-6 most likely being passed within few months)
ARIN maybe put in position of assigning smaller then /20 blocks and that
is why I suggested on ARIN ppml mailing list that current
but there is no class C space anymore. there is no class A space
either. its all CIDR space and some providers have retained some
vestigal classfull concepts in the creation/maintaince of their routing
filters. a /24 may or may not get you past my filters. any you'll have
no way to know
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:45:42 -0800 (PST), Harsha Narayan wrote:
Doesn't this mean that unless filtering policies change, after Class C
space is used up, the multihomer will have to get a /22 from the ISP
(since after Class C gets used up allocations will be made from Class A
space). There are
Thank you! I thought that was the whole point of CIDR...
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 4:54 PM
To: Harsha Narayan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FW: /8s and filtering
Hello,
Yes, it is all classless now, but I saw Verio's policies and thought
that it is the way ISPs filter. Also, the Jippi group filters at /21
except in the 192.0/7 space (where it is a /24). I didn't have enough
knowledge to realize that classful was vestigal.
Thanks,
Harsha.
On Tue, 10
Clue! - as you know doubt are now aware, VERIO and Jippi are -two-
of the tens of thousands of ISPs that make up the catanet that is the
Internet. The published filtering policies of these two providers is
a useful tool for others to determine why VERIO and Jippi are contributing
to odd
quit trolling!
you dont.. ask them, view their website, view their looking glass, phone their
noc... the internet is a large group of networks under independent
administrations, they can do as they please and frequently do!
Steve
On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, Harsha Narayan wrote:
Hello,
But how
I don't think even combined proposal would do it, best you can get is
that everybody who supported at least one of the proposals would support the
combined one and from last ARIN meeting number of large ISPs do not want
any of these as they'd like to have more control over the customer so only
Nope. Don't care either. thats their business.
When/If we need to develop a business relationship
with any of them, then we get to discuss our filtering
policies as aligned with theirs. why do you care?
Hello,
But how do you know how many of the rest filter
36 matches
Mail list logo
