[28057] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Multi-homing - service provider issues
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Chadd)
Thu Apr 6 09:49:33 2000
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 21:44:36 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
To: Dustin Goodwin <dustin@clickthings.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000406214434.A79795@ewok.creative.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <007201bf9fce$4c7245e0$0a8d473f@redconnect.net>; from Dustin Goodwin on Thu, Apr 06, 2000 at 09:44:56AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Apr 06, 2000, Dustin Goodwin wrote:
>
> Well from sentiment I pick up from nanog lists and last nanog meeting it
> does not seem many provides are actually worried about the size of the
> internet routing table anymore. Use to be the main objection to routing
> table growth was the fear of core routers become expensive space heaters . I
> am inferring here that routers have caught up and then some handling larger
> and larger tables. So why is there still so much resistances to supporting
> multi-homed customers that, shock horror, involves providers advertising
> more discreet routes that are in the middle of their cider blocks? I am
> guessing administrative overhead is main objection now. The whole
> micro-allocation conversation show provider willingness to allow growth in
> the routing tables. I have my flame retardant suit on so go for it.
Just because people might not fear their routers melting under large
network tables doesn't mean tomorrow they want 100,000 /30's in their
routing tables. The resistance is there so people who really positively
have no other choice - there are lots of other possibilities, and if
some unexpected sideeffect of lots of /30's pop up, the entire internet
suffers rather than just one customer.
Adrian
