BGP Question - how do work around pigheaded ISPs

[Stephen_Griffin]

In the referenced message, Craig A. Huegen said:
<snip>

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?

<snip>

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
neighbors.

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*.

/cah

*Godwin's Law does not apply when a Nazi reference is intentionally chosen.

[Stephen_Sprunk2]

Thus spake "Stephen Griffin" <stephen.griffin@rcn.com>

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 a cost associated with each AS connecting to the Net; if you
want your customers to have access to every AS, you will accept all
_reasonable_ advertisements. One prefix per AS is certainly more
reasonable than common practice -- just look at The Cidr Report.

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.

Define "properly."

The companies in question are different legal entities, operating in
different countries, with no common ISPs, and no direction connection to
each other. By definition, they are two different AS's with two
different prefixes and two different routing policies. There is no
valid way for these two companies to collectively announce a single
route.

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.

History has shown the reverse to be true.

While it may never happen in my lifetime, full-scale IPv6 deployment
will undoubtedly make filtering an absolute requirement.

Anyone who doesn't already filter extensively is an AS7007 waiting to
happen.

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.

Citing "technical reasons" for excessive filtering but allowing
exceptions for your own customers is clearly hypocritical. It's either
a technical problem or it's not. Consistency is the issue, not the
theoretical limits of the routing system.

S