[41098] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: multi-homing fixed
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex Bligh)
Wed Aug 29 15:10:54 2001
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 20:10:24 +0100
From: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Reply-To: Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>,
Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu, Alex Bligh <alex@alex.org.uk>
Message-ID: <687883775.999115823@[169.254.198.40]>
In-Reply-To: <20010829202515.O977-100000@sequoia.muada.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
--On Wednesday, 29 August, 2001 8:32 PM +0200 Iljitsch van Beijnum
<iljitsch@muada.com> wrote:
> So we don't want to force networks in the default-free zone to buy bigger
> routers with more memory, but it's ok to force them to essentially build a
> second network by having redundant pops in every city?
Noone is forcing anyone to do anything. Providers have a simple financial
incentive to build redundant network - customers pay more for connections
with higher availability and diversity. There is currently little financial
incentive for carrier's to carry other people's microallocated / 'TE'
routes, as /many/ of these do not materially affect goodput, and/or
are goodput to destinations less interesting than the cost they incur.
If I could think of a good way to measure usefulness of a prefix [1], I'd
bet that the (positive) corelation between it, and number of IP's in
that prefix is declining, but I bet small prefixes are still considerably
less useful than large ones, but cost the same.
[1] measuring traffic to/from prefixes against prefix size
(i.e. 2^(32-len)), as a % of total traffic, and plotting
these over time, would make an interesting research study.
Perhaps someone working in a research department at a major
backbone already has some stats they could do something
similar with.
Alex Bligh
Personal Capacity
