[86013] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: design of a real routing v. endpoint id seperation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Maimon)
Thu Oct 20 16:31:23 2005
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:30:46 -0400
From: Joe Maimon <jmaimon@ttec.com>
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Cc: North American Networking and Offtopic Gripes List <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <955E184EC27C2B58D6F1D7C0@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Owen DeLong wrote:
>>A customer with a prefix assigned from this chunk has to connect with an
>> ISP who has
>>
>>* a Very Large Multihoming (to handle scaling concerns) router somewhere
>>in its network that peers to other ISP Very Large Multihoming routers.
>>
>>ISP operating a VLMrouter to offer multihoming service to their
>>customers would originate the entire multihoming space prefix to their
>>customers AND to all their peers.
>>
>>These would have ALL the prefixes from the Multihoming Space.
>>
>
> So... Let me get this straight. You think that significantly changing
> the economic model of every ISP on the planet (or at least every large
> ISP on the planet) is easier than changing the code in every core router?
>
> ROTFLMAO
>
> Owen
ISPs who wish to connect customers who have allocations from the
multihoming space must
a) announce the whole space aggregated
b) peer with other providers who host other customers
ISPs who dont wish to connect these customers should feel free not to,
and that will have no bearing on the rest of those who do.
If you are referring to the affect that this will attract "unwanted"
traffic, that would be considered a COB.
In essence, the previous discussion about LNP suggested that telco's
must do the same thing, attract unwanted traffic, traffic they must
switch right back out of their network.
>
>
