North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Why Vadim likes statics

  • From: bmanning
  • Date: Mon Apr 24 10:36:23 1995
  • Posted-date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 07:14:46 -0700 (PDT)

> To move along an other tangent...  What is the general wisdom on putting
> pull-ups on route annoucements to deter route flap?  Vadim kindly gave me
> a static Null 250 hack to keep announcement up even if the source of the
> route drops it.  Hence, you won't get the !H until you get to our border.
> Los pobre packitos will travel all the way and then get whacked.  Seems
> to subvert one interpretation one could read into the intent of BGP.
> randy

This sounds a lot like the slippery slope of static routing being the most
stable, so we should encourage its use Internet wide.   I -know- Karl D.
(and others that depend on dynamic routing for alternate provider fallback)
will kick at this. 

The general argument is that since the current hardware technology has problems
with "flap", causing meltdown, that we should use statics to reduce the visablity
of "flap" across the net.

It is my contention that any use of dynamic routing will get you "flap".. by
definition.  So we end up with a few possible outcomes (there are more...)

	- Static routing is enforced on the perimeter of ISPs
	  (BGP dies as it is no longer useful)
	- Strict limits on "address" portability are imposed.
	  (no-hole, provider based addressing)
	- Internal nets become so complex that dynamic IGPs are squashed
	  and statics take over there as well.

In the end, the Internet looks just like the telco mesh.