interconnection richness effects Re: Was [Re: Sprint peering policy]
Joe Provo
joe.provo at rcn.com
Sat Jun 29 20:22:03 UTC 2002
On Sat, Jun 29, 2002 at 07:42:03PM -0000, Joseph T. Klein wrote:
[snip]
> The primary problem is the noise of smaller announcements popping
> on and off magnified by multihoming punching holes in large aggregates.
>
> Small announcement show more churn because they are more granular.
> They expand the route table thus slowing convergence.
Point: there's a body of data that indicates "multihoming" is not the
culprit. There's a lot of needless de-aggregating that has little or
nothign to do with multihoming, and mostly to do with lack of clue.
Both WRT limiting the scope of provider-based so-called "traffic
engineering" (CF ptomaine drafts) and that folks not using large tracts
of space can return blocks and get blocks that actually *fit* their
need.
Unfortunely there's a few companies/consultants whose business plan
requires them to graze on the commons and get all in a huff when any of
us tell them they're filtered because they are causing incremental damage
to our networks. Get over it kids; stable and deterministic behavior is
required for IP to work optimally.
Stability uber alles,
Joe
--
Joe Provo Voice 508.486.7471
Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax 508.229.2375
Network Deployment & Management, RCN <joe.provo at rcn.com>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list