North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: No. of routers carrying full routes?
In a previous message, Alan Hannan wrote: > > > [ Dave wrote: ] > > > I need to convince someone that singly-homed customer route flaps/ > > withdrawals should *not* propagate beyond our AS. I've found some > > discussion of this in the July NANOG archives, and talk about cisco > > floating statics, etc... and that "one-way" traffic is insignificant. > > Uhm, I'm not sure the concensus was that they shouldn't. I > believe most everyone would agree that flaps w/in CIDR blocks > should not propogate, and that people should only announce the > most general network possible. > > But, if you've got a customer singly-homed to me, ideally, from an > architecturely scalable point of view, you would do well to static > them to your aggregation/POP router. > > However, I'm not sure a quorum agreed that single-homed customers > should show up in backbone tables if their routes are/were down. > > There are points to be made both ways, but the BB routing tables > are meant to be a snapshot of the net, and if a vector points to > provider P, and customer C is not reachable there, I don't really > think P should announce such.... Well, if C is aggregated into one of my blocks, and they go away for a while, I'm gonna either blackhole it or send an Unreachable. The same as I would if their non-aggregated route is not withdrawn. CIDR/ aggregation pushes this out to the edges anyway, so I'd think that this is of far lesser consequence than thrashing the defaultless/core routers. I suppose the folks who run said routers would know more than I could at this point.... -- David Carmean WB6YZM DC574 <[email protected]> System/Network Administration, Silicon Beach Communications Unsolicited commercial e-mail not accepted. Violators will be LARTed. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
|