|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Verio Peering Question
Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote: > On Fri, 28 Sep 2001, Sean M. Doran wrote: > > > let me say that not only > > am I a strong supporter of filtering, I have also suggested > > fairly seriously to some registry-types that it is fair to allocate > > individual /32s as necessary to contain address consumption. > > So how is this supposed to work? For instance, I get a /27 and an AS > number, and I want to multihome. But nobody will listen to my > announcements. This is not a workable solution. > Hello; I actually have some information on this - look at http://www.multicasttech.com/status/cidr.html and http://www.multicasttech.com/status/histogram.cidr.bgp Of the announcements we receive (we are multihomed to 3 ISP's, but not to Verio), 57.6 % of the prefixes are /24's, and about 1/2 of these are holes in another address block. Presumably, the other 1/2 are mostly /24's from the swamp. So, a Verio like filtering policy would filter out about 1/2 of the /24's (a little more, actually) and leave the rest. This seems somewhat arbitrary to me. By contrast, only ~ 0.1% of the announcements are /25's or longer. SO, in the spirit of setting the speed limit at the speed people actually drive, I would suggest that a reasonable solution would be to admit up to /24's. I know that this will not be an entirely popular opinion. -- Regards Marshall Eubanks > > It is possible to take the position that the responsibility of the ISPs to > filter and the responsibility of the RIRs to assign are completely > unrelated, but that only holds in theory. In practice, people want to get > addresses they can use and use the addresses they can get. So there should > be a reasonable overlap. > > Multihomers generally announce just a single route and there are less than > 25k AS numbers so the majority of routes is NOT from multihomers so it > seems somewhat harsh to effectively forbid multihoming. > > But while we're all discussing drafts on multi6, the routing table is > still growing so some filtering should be expected. Is there really no way > we can all agree on a filtering policy that keeps the routing table in > check but still leaves some room for responsible multihoming? > > For instance: each AS gets to announce either a single route (regardless > of prefix size) or only RIR-allocation-sized blocks. > > (The problem with this is that you can't make a reasonably sized filter > that enforces this policy, so you would have to trust your peers to some > degree.) > > > That is, the registries are correctly focusing on that resource-management, > > and should spend energies on reclaiming wasted space (hello MIT!) > > rather than on managing multiple scarce resources. > > IP address space is only a scarce resource because it is allocated in huge > chunks. If we would be able to re-allocate individual un-used IP > addresses, we wouldn't run out for a _very_ long time. > > Iljitsch van Beijnum T.M. Eubanks Multicast Technologies, Inc 10301 Democracy Lane, Suite 410 Fairfax, Virginia 22030 Phone : 703-293-9624 Fax : 703-293-9609 e-mail : [email protected] http://www.on-the-i.com Test your network for multicast : http://www.multicasttech.com/mt/ Check the status of multicast in real time : http://www.multicasttech.com/status/index.html
|