[88702] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Adams)
Wed Feb 15 15:07:29 2006
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:04:24 -0600
From: Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Mail-Followup-To: Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602151907180.11208@pop.ict1.everquick.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Once upon a time, Edward B. DREGER <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net> said:
> No, it is not unworkable. Think through it a bit more. Although the
> problem is theoretically O(N^2), in practice it is closer to O(N). Note
> that _routing itself_ is theoretically an O(N^2) problem. Do we say
> that it is "unworkable obviously"? No.
There's a difference: computers (routers) handle the O(N^2) routing
problem, while people would have to handle the O(N^2) cooperative AS
problem.
> Yes, one ASN is required per cooperating pair. Just how many pairs do
> you think there are? Now compare with the number of leaves that [would
> [like to]] dual-home.
We are a relatively small ISP with just a handful of multihoming
customers. However, no two of them have the same other provider. What
is gained by us setting up relationships with a bunch of other providers
and getting special ASes assigned? What if one of those customers gets
a connection to a third upstream, or if they change their upstream?
Right now, it doesn't affect us (we don't have to do anything), but in
your setup, it would require us to get yet another AS.
Only one of our multihoming customers has a connection to someone we
already have a connection with, so there's no path between our network
and the rest.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
