verio arrogance

Ralph Doncaster ralph at istop.com
Sat Jul 27 13:29:42 UTC 2002


> > > Announce your largest aggregate, and announce more-specifics tagged
> > > no-export to those peers who agree to accept them?
> > 
> > Which is worse than announcing just the more specifics to 2 different
> > transit providers in 2 different cities.
> 
> Worse for those two transit providers, not the rest of the world.

Why won't the rest of the world see extra hops and increased latency
reaching my network (for the 50% of the time that the wrong transit
provider is picked).

> > > Upgrade the connectivity between your sites?
> > Technically sound, economically stupid.  You offering to pony up the
> > $5K/mth for an OC3 so I can have a redundant link between Ottawa and
> > Toronto?
> 
> You are choosing to save money by poluting the global routing table. There 
> may not be anything wrong with that, but don't be surprised when you hit 
> providers who don't want or need to listen to your more specifics.
> 
> Stop whining about it and fix your announcements.

The proposed "fix" is a big mess.
My solution doesn't add to the global routing table since I'm renumbering
out of a few /24's to the /20 I received from ARIN.  I'm only
de-aggregating to a /23, not /24.  My solution provides optimal routing vs
announcing the /20 globally.

The proposed "fix" will waste bandwidth, increase latency, and far more
problematic to implement; how many NOC monkeys do you know that will be
able to grasp the purpose of the 2 BGP sessions (one of them
ebgp-multihop) let alone fix it if something goes wrong?

-Ralph





More information about the NANOG mailing list