[99172] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Lincoln Dale)
Sat Sep 8 02:08:56 2007
From: "Lincoln Dale" <ltd@interlink.com.au>
To: "'Jon Lewis'" <jlewis@lewis.org>, "'Leo Bicknell'" <bicknell@ufp.org>
Cc: <nanog@nanog.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2007 16:07:32 +1000
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0709080026520.30395@soloth.lewis.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
> I'm not crazy about that, but certainly it'd work, and there would still
> be some savings. Due to the above mentioned stupidity, you'd still have
> no routes for some parts of the internet.
what i think it boils down to is that many folks seem to run default-free
because they can, because its cool, because its what tier-1 folks do, because
(insert cool/uber reason why here), but not necessarily because they HAVE TO.
even if you're a content-provider in North America and want to ensure an
"optimal path" of traffic, generally speaking, you could accept prefixes
(as-is) from ARIN allocations but for (say) APNIC and RIPE do either some
degree of filtering or just push it via a default.
having a full feed may be cool, but i'm not sure what cost folks are willing to
pay for that 'cool' factor.
filtering and/or default-to-one-place may be so 90s but that doesn't mean its a
bad thing.
cheers,
lincoln.
