[119305] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Failover how much complexity will it add?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel Jaeggli)
Thu Nov 12 20:41:39 2009
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:40:51 +0900
From: Joel Jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
In-Reply-To: <m2ws1xx5s0.wl%randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, stef@memberwebs.com
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Randy Bush wrote:
>> It has been routinely observed in nanog presentations that settlement
>> free providers by their nature miss a few prefixes that well connected
>> transit purchasing ISPs carry.
>
> just trying to understand what you mean,
>
> o no transit-free provider actually has all (covering) prefixes needed
> to cover the active space, but
>
> o one or more reasonably small subsets of the set of transit-free
> providers do cover the whole active space.
If your goal is near-complete coverage, under normal circumstances you
need more than one (your subset). Settlement-free provider peering spats
are a degenerate condition of the normal state of affairs. The
non-settlement-free provider has some subset already.
Pointing default into a settlement-free provider, that is deliberately
not speaking to another is obviously a recipe to lose data, which speaks
to the question of whether one should as for a full table from
settlement free upstreams.
My somewhat obtuse point was that this isn't some wild west frontier
justice sort of affair, but rather, the normal state of affairs.
> randy
>
