the Internet Backbone

Mon Apr 8 21:46:31 UTC 1996

David,

	I think what Avi meant was that if you take full routing table and
not using default, chances are that no matter how many backup providers you
have, you are still risking dropping packets on *YOUR* router if routes to a
particular location are lost. This makes you look bad when your customer
traceroutes.

	If you have default then even if all the external routes
get lost you can still deliver the packets to your provider and let him
drop it. This looks favorable from your customer's traceroutes.

	In practice, it is better to drop it as early as possible because
any additional delivery is unnecessary, but...

Jun
--
       o o o o o o . . .    ___========_T__  ___========================_T__
     o      _____          ||   Jun J Wu  |  |     jun at wolfox.gsl.net     |
   .][__n_n_|DD[  ====____  |  Global One |  |  http://wolfox.gsl.net/jun | |
  >(________|__|_[________]_|_____________|__|____________________________|_|
 __/oo OOOOO oo`  ooo  ooo  'o^o      o^o`   'o^o                      o^o`

===== David ``Joel Katz'' Schwartz previously wrote: ====
> 
> On Mon, 8 Apr 1996, Avi Freedman wrote:
> 
> > Now, many 2nd level providers that *could* operate default-free choose
> > not to.  Even if you have three or more sets of 30k+ routes each, it
> > takes balls to risk dropping packets that your customers want you to 
> > deliver just so that you can have the packet be dropped at your router
> > instead of at your (possibly backup) transit provider's router.
> > 
> > Avi
> 
> 	Can't anyone who takes full routes from any tier 1 provider 
> operate without a default route? And isn't it a reasonable assumption 
> that if you don't have a route somewhere, odds are they don't have a 
> route to you (assuming you do your own BGP routing) and so a default 
> route is mostly pointless anyway?
> 
> 	What am I missing?
>