solving problems instead of beating heads on walls [was: something about arrogance]

Sat Jul 27 14:04:44 UTC 2002

On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 09:14:35AM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
[snip]
> > You could do a deaggregate+no-export method as well, even with your two
> > different transit providers.  You would just need to run ebgp-multihop
> > to each of them from the opposite network, and announce your
> > more-specifics there.  Not a perfectly clean method, but at least it
> > keeps your pollution local.
> 
> Then there is no ability for remote networks to choose the best path to my
> Toronto vs Ottawa networks (since the different transit providers would
> announce only the /20).  Instead of using more router CPU/mem, this uses
> more network bandwidth than necessary (statistically speaking traffic has
> a 50% chance of going to the "wrong" transit provider).  As well, for the
> ebgp-multihop to work wouldn't that require some extra static routes to be
> setup by my transit providers?

If you want to run seperate networks, run separate networks. Different
ASes, the whole 9 yards; perhaps a re-reading of rfc1930 is in order? 
Back in the day, there was a promising local provider in my neck of the 
woods who has an AS per state for similar business reasons. They hit no 
filters, had no concerns, and when their business grew to the point of 
being able to clean things up, they did. No fuss, no muss and they're
still in business with not chapter 11 in sight. Seems some folks would 
rather kick and scream.

Perhaps people who weren't 'here' to work with and experience CIDR 
deployment don't think there's any harm in going aginst CIDR. Perhaps it 
is lack of experience in general engineering; one basic rule of thumb is 
to solve problems by avoiding the conditions which create them. By rushing 
headllong into activities that are -in even the most conservative terms-
"debatable", you are inviting both known and unknown affects today and 
tomorrow.  Using a reachbility protocol as an 'optimization' protocol for 
anything other than non-local affects (standardized well-known
communities) is practice that is not guarenteed to work.

I guess the point is, there's lots of "possible" activities in IP let
alone BGP. If you presume that all which is technically possible is a
good idea, then you are the only one responsible for the outcome. If 
you set yourself up for problems, especially ones that are known and 
trivially researchable, then don't gripe about it.  Check who you're 
paying what. Google '"tragedy of the commons" internet route routing'.
And to work to actully *solve* the problem, I'd suggest participating 
in PTOMAINE and the like. Rather than railing aginst current deployments,
network operators, or the price of bits in CA your energy would be 
better spent nagging vendors to back drafts and to be ready to adopt new 
well-known-communities.

Joe, thinking this belongs in a FAQ somewhere... 

--
Joe Provo                                            Voice  508.486.7471
Director, Internet Planning & Design                 Fax    508.229.2375
Network Deployment & Management, RCN                 <joe.provo at rcn.com>