[161584] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: routing table go boom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sander Steffann)
Wed Mar 20 12:33:28 2013
From: Sander Steffann <sander@steffann.nl>
In-Reply-To: <5149D8CD.6040401@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 17:33:09 +0100
To: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi,
> As the ETR is not the final destination, it is subject to blackholing
> after ETR, which means:
>=20
> The function in question can completely and correctly be
> implemented only with the knowledge and help of the
> application standing at the endpoints of the communication
> system.
>=20
> Granted that it is no worse than multihoming by routing protocols.
>=20
> But, it merely means that neither BGP nor LISP works "completely
> and correctly".
Well, yeah, if your internal routing (behind the ETR) breaks then your =
network is broken...
Met vriendelijke groet,
Sander Steffann
