[22796] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: aads renumbering rumor and implications
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Stuart)
Sun Jan 24 19:18:36 1999
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 24 Jan 1999 15:27:56 PST."
<m104Ywe-0008G4C@rip.psg.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 16:00:54 -0800
From: Stephen Stuart <stuart@tech.org>
I don't know about the specifics of ADS, but this question:
> o does anyone see why the exchange address space needs to be globally
> routable?
is valid in any case.
Global announcement of IX address space has caused me trouble in the
past when "remote" maintenance access depends on it; inconsistent
policy with respect to IX prefix announcement caused the path to the
IX prefix to be wildly lossy, while announcement of a non-IX prefix
was much better. We addressed that by making sure that all equipment
was maintained and monitored remotely using non-IX address space
addresses so that there was slightly better control over the
announcement (and over packet-level access to addresses on which
monitoring was permitted).
That said, I think it's still important to have global reachability
for exchange point addresses so that problems like congestion can be
remotely diagnosed. Sometimes the difference in packet loss between a
provider's IX address and some address one hop beyond it is a valuable
clue in tracking down problems; without global routing of exchange
point addresses, such diagnosis would only be possible to those who
distribute the IX prefix within their IGP.
Stephen
