[49949] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: No one behind the wheel at WorldCom
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Sat Jul 13 17:12:44 2002
Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:12:09 +0100 (BST)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk>
To: Stephen Stuart <stuart@tech.org>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <200207131943.g6DJhbb15215@lo.tech.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Just having my saturday afternoon stir really but .. :
On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Stephen Stuart wrote:
> > I beg to differ...
> >
> > c/o Tony Bates, UU are only kept off the top spot by Telstra's
> > apparent policy of deaggregating!
>
> I don't speak for UUNET, not a shareholder, don't have any say over
> their routing policies; that said, there are a couple reasons that
> might be the case:
>
> 1. Deaggregation to help spread out traffic flow. As someone who used
> to send a lot of traffic toward some big providers, it can be hard
> to balance traffic efficiently when all you get is one short prefix
> at multiple peering points. Having more-specifics, and possibly
A slight exaggeration, large providers have more than one assignment of IPs and
according to the RIR info they are used regionally anyway
> even MEDs that make sense, can help with decisions regarding which
> part of a /9 can be reached best via which peering point. (And
> that's peering as in BGP, not peering as in settlements.)
>
> 2. Cut-outs for those pesky dot-coms; you know, the ones with the most
> compelling content on the Internet jumping up and down in your face
> with a need to multi-home their /24 to satisfy the crushing global
> demand for such essentials as "the hamster dance."
Overlap the more specific with the main block? (I assume) Tony's report shows
originating AS, in which case the sub-assignments wont show towards UUs count.
> I can easily imagine that when you have a lot of customers (as UUNET
> is purported to have), you'd have the above two situations in spades,
> plus more that we'll no doubt discuss at great length for the next
> week.
>
> Let's consider the converse, though - what if AS701 were to suddenly
> become a paragon of routing table efficiency, and collapse all their
> announcements into one (not possible, I know, but indulge me, please)?
>
> First, some decrease in revenue because all the more-specifics for
> multi-homed customers would be preferred over the one big AS701
> announcement.
They will still announce the customer's BGP more specifics tho?
> Second, a traffic balancing nightmare as everyone who touches AS701 in
> multiple places tries to figure out how to deliver traffic to AS701
> efficiently.
As above, it is at least as far as I can tell assigned per country.
Steve
> While Tony's report certainly indicates that things could be better,
> it is also true that they could be a lot worse.
>
> Stephen
>
