[50404] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: routing table size
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Schwartz)
Sat Jul 27 18:30:14 2002
From: David Schwartz <davids@webmaster.com>
To: <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk>
Cc: <ralph@istop.com>, "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 15:29:29 -0700
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0207272255440.27179-100000@staff.opaltelecom.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:04:02 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox=
wrote:
>I've a feeling that the fact that everyone shares at least the=
view that a
>/24
>is minimum helps to contain the routing table. (even if there=
are still
>thousands of /24 announcements)
>
>If a significant number of providers starting accepting any=
prefix then the
>others would need to follow (else they'd get no transit traffic=
as it will
>always prefer the most specific). This really would lead to=
route explosion!
>
>I guess the counter argument is that you'd still get the same=
number of
>announcements at longer prefixes as there are only lots of /24s=
as its the
>current shortest (if you catch my drift here). But I doubt it is=
quite that
>straight forward and there would be a growth in announcements..
>
>Steve
=09My point is simply that only those who felt the /32s were worth=
carrying
would carry them. And those who chose to announce them would have=
to factor
the effects of selective carrying into their decisions. But=
nobody would be
imposing any unwanted costs on anyone else.
=09That's the difference. Nothing you can possibly do with a=
customer can
impose unwanted costs on you or the customer. If you don't want=
the costs,
don't do it. If the customer won't pay you the cost of doing it,=
don't do it.
it's only in the relationship between ISPs and non-customers that=
there's a
pollution and inequitable cost distribution issue.
=09Practicing what you preach does not require treating=
fundamentally different
situations as the same.
=09DS
