[115931] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: BGP Growth projections
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ray Burkholder)
Sun Jul 12 15:52:24 2009
From: "Ray Burkholder" <ray@oneunified.net>
To: "'nanog list'" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:51:28 -0300
In-Reply-To: <20090712193110.GA31689@latency.net>
X-MailScanner-From: ray@oneunified.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
> On 2009-07-12-06:09:12, Arie Vayner <arievayner@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Unless you are a major transit operator (which beats the "small ISP"
> > requirement), you don't really need a full view, and can do we a
> > limited view with a default route.
>
> Disagree. Protection against big-provider depeerings,
> interdomain capacity problems, etc is increasingly relevant
> to smaller sites interested in getting business done. While
> some will outsource this protection their (non-transit-free)
> provider, others enjoy maintaining this granularity of
> control themselves...
>
Specifically, with full routes, us "small ISP" people can match ASNs with
traffic in Netflow to see where our traffic goes/comes from, and thus do
capacity/link/peer/transit/traffic planning and problem mitigation.
--
Scanned for viruses and dangerous content at
http://www.oneunified.net and is believed to be clean.
