[161606] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: routing table go boom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Masataka Ohta)
Wed Mar 20 23:11:18 2013
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:07:14 +0900
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <C2918E3E-D903-4A61-A55C-0FC59D24E9EB@steffann.nl>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Sander Steffann wrote:
>> As the ETR is not the final destination, it is subject to blackholing
>> after ETR, which means:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Granted that it is no worse than multihoming by routing protocols.
>>
>> 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...
No, what can break is internal routing of one of your ISP,
which is why you, an end user, want multihoming.
William Herrin wrote:
Masataka Ohta
