North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: No one behind the wheel at WorldCom
Just having my saturday afternoon stir really but .. : On Sat, 13 Jul 2002, Stephen Stuart wrote: > > I beg to differ... > > > > c/o Tony Bates, UU are only kept off the top spot by Telstra's > > apparent policy of deaggregating! > > I don't speak for UUNET, not a shareholder, don't have any say over > their routing policies; that said, there are a couple reasons that > might be the case: > > 1. Deaggregation to help spread out traffic flow. As someone who used > to send a lot of traffic toward some big providers, it can be hard > to balance traffic efficiently when all you get is one short prefix > at multiple peering points. Having more-specifics, and possibly A slight exaggeration, large providers have more than one assignment of IPs and according to the RIR info they are used regionally anyway > even MEDs that make sense, can help with decisions regarding which > part of a /9 can be reached best via which peering point. (And > that's peering as in BGP, not peering as in settlements.) > > 2. Cut-outs for those pesky dot-coms; you know, the ones with the most > compelling content on the Internet jumping up and down in your face > with a need to multi-home their /24 to satisfy the crushing global > demand for such essentials as "the hamster dance." Overlap the more specific with the main block? (I assume) Tony's report shows originating AS, in which case the sub-assignments wont show towards UUs count. > I can easily imagine that when you have a lot of customers (as UUNET > is purported to have), you'd have the above two situations in spades, > plus more that we'll no doubt discuss at great length for the next > week. > > Let's consider the converse, though - what if AS701 were to suddenly > become a paragon of routing table efficiency, and collapse all their > announcements into one (not possible, I know, but indulge me, please)? > > First, some decrease in revenue because all the more-specifics for > multi-homed customers would be preferred over the one big AS701 > announcement. They will still announce the customer's BGP more specifics tho? > Second, a traffic balancing nightmare as everyone who touches AS701 in > multiple places tries to figure out how to deliver traffic to AS701 > efficiently. As above, it is at least as far as I can tell assigned per country. Steve > While Tony's report certainly indicates that things could be better, > it is also true that they could be a lot worse. > > Stephen >
|