[77883] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The Cidr Report
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen J. Wilcox)
Sun Feb 13 14:34:03 2005
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 19:32:49 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
To: "Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190" <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <e2c4cda6ee2bb0a248dc84e86eb0665a@kumari.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, 14 Feb 2005, Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190 wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> >
> > There are multiple reasons for deaggregation aside from 'dumb operator',
> > some are even 'valid' if you look at them from the protection standpoint.
>
> That and the "I have 1 circuit to $good_provider and 1 circuit to
> $bad_provider and the only way I can make them balance is to split my space in
> half and announce more specifics out through each provider" argument. I have
> also often seen people do this without announcing the aggregate because <some
> undefined bad thing> will happen, usually justified with much hand-waving.
> The people who do this can usually not be reasoned with....
this just reinforces the argument that they are lacking in technical savvy.
i have a transit provider who i dont want to carry much traffic and i dont want
to prepend my announcements.. by looking at that providers supported customer
communities i just get them to prepend as they export to other major networks
thus moving the main volume of the traffic to the desired ingress paths
no deaggregation, no prepending..
Steve
