North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: interconnection richness effects Re: Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]

  • From: Joseph T. Klein
  • Date: Sat Jun 29 16:20:51 2002 
That makes sense ... many full routing tables is fare worse than
many partial routing tables. If my last resort was buying from a
Tier 1 after peering out most of my traffic I would prefer "paid
peering" or "partial transit". ... and one can always not listen to
routes that have multiple non optimized paths via transit
connections.

If you have 10 ways to an ASN and 3 or four stable and clean diverse
routes exist ... why chew up memory and CPU listening to the poor
routes?

--On Saturday, 29 June 2002 16:01 -0400 Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]> wrote:


On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 07:42:03PM -0000, Joseph T. Klein wrote:

Flat designs tend to ring like a bell when instability is introduced.
I think we held the world record for flapping at NAP.NET in 95-96.
That was a flat design executed during a time when the Cisco architecture
and software could not keep up with the growth and churn rate. The
inclusion of algorithms that enhanced oscillation ringing (and since has
been fixed in IOS) did not help.

Have you ever seen an InterNAP route flap? Its good for around two minutes
or 120 traceroutes of pure humor, with a different loop across a different
backbone in a different city with every invokation.

Extensive peering relationships don't generally cause a breakdown of BGP,
which is probably the reason that we have settled into using that system.
Extensive transit relationships on the other hand, like those used by the
"optimized routing" crowd to try and take advantage of all the "richness
of paths" out there which aren't being used efficiently, break BGP very
very quickly (in my experience at any rate).

--
Richard A Steenbergen <[email protected]>       http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177  (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA  B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)



--
Joseph T. Klein                                         [email protected]

   "Why do you continue to use that old Usenet style signature?"
                                                               -- anon

Attachment: pgp00033.pgp
Description: PGP signature