[57701] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: selective auto-aggregation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo)
Fri Apr 18 09:36:36 2003
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 09:36:01 -0400
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net
In-Reply-To: <3E9F24D6.5090509@brightok.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
{Historical lessons of atomic aggregates and the dangers of passing them
along should be background}
On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 05:04:06PM -0500, Jack Bates wrote:
[snip]
> companies requiring the longer prefixes. Are there companies that
> actually announce their smaller routes despite controlling the shorter
> prefix?
Yes.
> What would be the benefit of doing so?
They mistakenly believe that all providers will proagate their
more-specifics and want to attranct traffic in a certain way for
a certain longest-match. If they
- anticipate this link-juggling to ONLY occur along contracted
paths
- appropriately tag NO-EXPORT
- also announce the greater aggregate
...then they'll get what they want out of the parties with whom
they contract. It is trivial and stunning that service providers
don't actively promote it to their customers. Some would rather
collect money for customers grazing on the commons rather than
for providing *service*.
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
