North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: routing table size
On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:04:02 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > >I've a feeling that the fact that everyone shares at least the view that a > >/24 > >is minimum helps to contain the routing table. (even if there are still > >thousands of /24 announcements) > > > >If a significant number of providers starting accepting any prefix then the > >others would need to follow (else they'd get no transit traffic as it will > >always prefer the most specific). This really would lead to route explosion! > > > >I guess the counter argument is that you'd still get the same number of > >announcements at longer prefixes as there are only lots of /24s as its the > >current shortest (if you catch my drift here). But I doubt it is quite that > >straight forward and there would be a growth in announcements.. > > > >Steve > > My point is simply that only those who felt the /32s were worth carrying > would carry them. And those who chose to announce them would have to factor > the effects of selective carrying into their decisions. But nobody would be > imposing any unwanted costs on anyone else. Yes, you said that before and my above comments still apply! > That's the difference. Nothing you can possibly do with a customer can > impose unwanted costs on you or the customer. If you don't want the costs, > don't do it. If the customer won't pay you the cost of doing it, don't do it. > it's only in the relationship between ISPs and non-customers that there's a > pollution and inequitable cost distribution issue. But it costs me nothing to accept my customers announcements.... ? > Practicing what you preach does not require treating fundamentally different > situations as the same. How is it different? The cash (customer) bit isnt relevant.. its how many providers allow it which is. Steve > > DS > > >
|