North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: CIDR Report
> The group of providers can transfer routing information between > themselves using the routing protocol of their choice. This would mean > a small increase in the size of local (i.e. within the ASs of the > group) routing tables, but a negligible increase in the size of the > global BGP tables. The problem with this strategy is that it does not eliminate the single point of failure of an incompetant routing engineer at one of the providers in the group -- the chance of a single mistake by one provider in the group bringing down the whole group would be MUCH higher than the chance of a single human error bringing down two unrelated providers. Speaking as a former employee of a small, multi-homed company with several diverse /24s, I can say that there are definitely valid reasons for this configuration. We were not large enough to enough request our own address space, and our upstream would not give us all the address space we eventually needed at the outset, so we ended up with a bunch of random class Cs. In order to achieve the level or reliability we needed, we had to be multihomed to seperate providers; during the time I worked there, more than 70% of outages were due to one of our upstreaming goofing, not due to a single circuit being down, so any solution which results in multiple paths to non-independant networks would not have met our requirements. It seems to me it is kind of approaching the problem backward to say "Well, these are the limits of our routers, so this is what services we can offer moving forwards." Wouldn't it make more sense to identify what the actual needs of end users are (and I think portable /24s is a legitimate need!), and then plan the future of the backbone based upon those needs? If we need to go to Cisco and say, "Hey, make a GSR that does BGP updates faster", then that's what we need to do! Imposing limitations on end users which make the internet less useful is not a solution to the problem, at best it's a kludge which reduces the headache for backbone providers, but doesn't actually solve any long-term problems. Also, I don't really buy the "how do we manage 250K routes?" arguement. Any well-designed system which can effectively manage 10K of something, in general, ought to be able to handle 250K of it; it's just a question of scaling it up, and there's no question that processors and getting faster and memory cheaper every day. If there's some magic number of routes that suddenly becomes unmanagable, I'd love to hear why.