[36536] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland Meyer)
Tue Apr 10 13:48:08 2001
Message-ID: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039E38@condor.mhsc.com>
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: 'Patrick Evans' <pre@pre.org>,
"Majdi S. Abbas" <msa@samurai.sfo.dead-dog.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 10:30:38 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> From: Patrick Evans [mailto:pre@pre.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 10:22 AM
> On the flipside, who is actually less concerned about routing table
> size? The multihomed networks on the edges who can use a default if
> they want to, and are likely to be carrying less traffic and so have
> more resources to deal with routing, or the core networks who have
> capacity problems of their own?
AFAICT, multi-homing doesn't work unless you also have dynamic routing. Is
this wrong?
