[36537] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Getting a "portable" /19 or /20
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Fraizer)
Tue Apr 10 14:07:22 2001
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 13:59:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: John Fraizer <nanog@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
To: Patrick Evans <pre@pre.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0104101813090.30317-100000@pimlico.pre.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104101354390.28292-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Patrick Evans wrote:
>
> Incidentally, how do people feel about the use of default routes to
> work around the problem of routing table size on tier-2 (!) networks
> and below? If all "small" edge networks pointed their default at one
> or more of their upstreams, and filtered their outbound traffic to
> remove things they wouldn't want to be able to get out anyway, it
> would be down to the larger NSPs to deal with the issue of routing
> table size for prefixes beyond a certain length.
> Doesn't really fix anything, as it reduces control over which path
> your outbound traffic takes, but I suppose at least it makes sure
> it'll go -somewhere-?
Pointing default is a stop-gap measure at best for the multi-homed entity
on the edge. It does not reduce the size of the global table at all. It
simply allows the edge entity to get by with using a less powerful router
because they don't have to hold full views in their RIB.
> 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?
Everyone _should_ be concerned about table size unless they just have
money to throw at their routers for grins and giggles.
---
John Fraizer
EnterZone, Inc
