[75463] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Cidr Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo)
Sat Nov 13 08:45:17 2004
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2004 08:44:48 -0500
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0411130328190.28357@sharpie.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, Nov 13, 2004 at 03:31:26AM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
[snip]
> Of these listed 4 are cable companies, is there something in the cable
> modem networking that requires deaggregated routes beyond their borders?
No, for the general statement about 'cable modem networking'.
> Is the problem that they might have seperate 'networks' for their regional
> parts and leak more specifics for these parts along with 'backup' routes
> via aggregates?
This is trivial to do only as far as your $s carry. Aggregate draws
the traffic, then NO_EXPORT-tagged longest-match carries the
regionalized traffic. Folks do this as a 'best exit' approach between
peer netwworks all the time. If you are suggesting disjoint, unconnected
islands, then they should be separate ASNs for sane paths; see charter's
islands, the pre-271 refleif ILEC LATA-bound islands, etc.
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
