Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
Jon Lewis
jlewis at lewis.org
Sat Sep 8 11:51:02 UTC 2007
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007, Lincoln Dale wrote:
> what i think it boils down to is that many folks seem to run default-free
> because they can, because its cool, because its what tier-1 folks do, because
> (insert cool/uber reason why here), but not necessarily because they HAVE TO.
Consider a regional or local ISP providing BGP to a customer. The
customer also has a connection to a "Tier 1". The customer may start
asking questions when they notice they get 250k routes from one provider
and only 50k to 80k less routes from you.
I suppose some "Tier 1"s got away with this in the past though...so maybe
there are acceptable answers.
> even if you're a content-provider in North America and want to ensure an
> "optimal path" of traffic, generally speaking, you could accept prefixes
> (as-is) from ARIN allocations but for (say) APNIC and RIPE do either some
> degree of filtering or just push it via a default.
I actually suggested this yesterday to a friend who runs an ISP and has
just run into his 7500s running out of RAM and crashing when turning up a
new transit provider with full BGP routes. Filtering the APNIC and RIPE
regions and adding a default will very likely let him fit "mostly full
routes" on his router and put off the inevitible fork-lift upgrade a
while longer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis | I route
Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are
Atlantic Net |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
More information about the NANOG
mailing list