|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: NSP ... New Information
At 09:22 AM 06/10/97 -0500, Phil Howard wrote: > >Right. But people see it as such a problem because the routing policies >are IP space derived. When people are told they need a /19 to be routable, >then they begin to go backwards on solving the IP space problem and resume >wasting it (but hiding the waste to look like its used). > But this is somewhat of a misnomer. It is not an issue of being 'routable' v. 'non-routable', but rather, one of whether you can be aggregated into a larger prefix. This practice encourages aggregation -- it is commonly agreed that Aggregation is Good (tm). The routability issue comes into play when: o You are specifically referring to routes being propagated by a service provider who uses prefix-length filters, AND o You cannot be aggregated into a large enough advertised CIDR block to conform to these types of filters. >When the need to justify space usage occurred, along with it came some ideas >on actually how to do that. And I see that working. We were projected to >run totally out of space by now, and since we have not, I assume it did work >pretty well. > BGP4, CIDR, or Die. >But the real problem is routing policies that are encouraging people to go >back to wasting space. By using the network size as the criteria for doing >route filtering, the smaller guys get screwed and they see their solution >as inflating their network. This practice needs to be stopped or a better >solution needs to come out of it. > One might suggest that some of the prefix length filter could be replaced by more aggressive dampening policies. - paul
|