/24s run amuck again

Geoff Huston gih at telstra.net
Sun Jun 10 07:45:26 UTC 2001


At 6/10/01 02:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
> >> but if you are not paying me, what reasons are there for me to spend my
> >> resources (route bloat) so you can engineer your traffic?
> > none.
>
>well, we agree so far :-)
>
> > Now tell me how to promulgate my TE-triggering routing advertisements
> > precisely to the edge of my payment boundary (i.e. my upstreams, and
> > their upstreams, and so on recursively along the upstream relationships)
> > and no further, using today's BGP?
>
>but why should i pay the costs because the tool was not designed to do what
>you want done?

Taken together, the pair of statements above is a pretty good illustration 
of the issues at play in the inter-provider space today. Wanting to 
optimize traffic loads over multiple connections is not unreasonable as an 
objective, but having the entire world see your resultant advertisements is 
not the best of outcomes.


>i will happily work on tool design with you [0].  but, in the meantime, why
>should i have to pay a penalty for your odd business choices?


If you are on my upstream chain, then I am accompanying my routing 
requirements with money. Whatever penalty you may incur I pay for with my 
upstream payment. Where your statement holds is once you are not seeing 
money from me (i.e. you are not an upstream paid directly or indirectly by 
me), in which case what would help us all is a recognised [*] community 
attribute which says "advertise this prefix together with this attribute 
only to your upstreams"

[*] 'well if you don't recognise it then I am less interested in having you 
as my upstream than if you do.


>( casual readers should note that 'you' and 'i' are abstract terms, and
>that geoff usually claims to be more of a capitalist than i :-)

indeed :-)





More information about the NANOG mailing list