[36346] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer)
Tue Apr 3 14:55:03 2001
Message-ID: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039DC4@condor.mhsc.com>
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: 'RJ Atkinson' <rja@inet.org>, Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:55:27 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Sorry, I thought we were discussing all multi-homing. Your example doesn't
help the business whose ISP suffers a business failure (such as DSLnetworks,
Flashpoint, et al), only the case where the access provider fails SLA.
To put it bluntly, a single circuit, to a single business, while annoying,
doesn't cause wide-spread outages when it fails. It is thus, the
lesser-order case. The case I thought was under discussion is when an ISP
dumps something on the order of 10^3 or more customers when they fail. I
understand that NorthPoint abandoned
~100,000 customers when they sold their backbone to AT&T and AT&T didn't
pick up the subscribers. I will wager that many of them were /24s.
DSLnetworks had over 700 Covad customers, FlashPoint was larger. For various
definitions of "wide-spread", this is a much larger issue than a broken
copper-pair. I suspect that it also has a much higher likelyhood of
occurance. Especially, in the current business shakeout.
Guess what ... it won't stop. This sort of problem will be with us forever.
We should find a solution ... someday ... ya think?
Business failures are on one side of the problem and CIDR aggregation is on
the other.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja@inet.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:26 AM
> To: Roeland Meyer
> Cc: nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
>
>
> At 13:55 03/04/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:
>
> >The problem with this, if done, is that we back right into
> the other problem
> >of prefix filtering.
>
> No. These are separate tail circuits to separate POPs
> of the same ISP. So that one ISP only needs to advertise its
> fully aggregated prefix. So the problem you postulate does
> not arise in this particular situation.
>
> > What is the other ISP to do?
>
> You didn't read closely enough. 2 tail circuits,
> 2 POPs, but only 1 ISP was the scenario outlined. It works
> quite well, provided one picks the ISP thoughtfully.
>
> Ran
>
>
