[43232] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Verio Peering Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Sean M. Doran)
Tue Oct 2 18:10:46 2001
To: iljitsch@muada.com, smd@clock.org
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-Id: <20011002221011.81A03C790C@cesium.clock.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2001 15:10:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: smd@clock.org (Sean M. Doran)
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
| So how is this supposed to work? For instance, I get a /27 and an AS
| number, and I want to multihome. But nobody will listen to my
| announcements. This is not a workable solution.
So you call up noc@foobar.net and offer them $x to listen to and
propagate your announcement, and perhaps to act as your agent in
transactions with other networks around the world.
Or, you could negotiate 1-on-1 with every network who doesn't
give you free (or agent-negotiated) access by default.
This imposes cost on you because you are consuming an AS number
and introducing an unaggregated and unaggregatable prefix
into these networks' routing systems.
| Multihomers generally announce just a single route and there are less than
| 25k AS numbers so the majority of routes is NOT from multihomers so it
| seems somewhat harsh to effectively forbid multihoming.
Not all multihoming requires the introduction of unaggregated
and unaggregatable prefixes.
| Is there really no way
| we can all agree on a filtering policy that keeps the routing table in
| check but still leaves some room for responsible multihoming?
Given the vehemence with which some people argue that filtering
is a bad idea in the first place, the answer is clearly "no".
A better question is, can tools and information be put together
to mitigate the problems multihomers may face as network operators
try to deal with expanding tables, in the _absence_ of interprovider
cooperation?
Sean.
