/24s run amuck
Patrick W.Gilmore
patrick at ianai.net
Tue Jan 13 21:12:13 UTC 2004
On Jan 13, 2004, at 3:58 PM, Steve Francis wrote:
> Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
>> On Jan 13, 2004, at 2:19 PM, Steve Francis wrote:
>>
>>> I'll take some education - given two POP's, different upstream ISPs
>>> at each POP, and a desire to have traffic for specific networks
>>> (/24) enter a specific POP, can that be done without de-aggregation?
>>> We are not doing this ourselves - we're not yet big enough to have
>>> our own aggregate blocks, but if we did, we could not just announce
>>> a /20 at each POP, and transit the traffic back to the appropriate
>>> datacenter ourselves. We're an ASP, and do not have real links
>>> between POP's, only VPN's.
>>>
>>> If we used consistent upstreams at each POP, we could do it by
>>> announcing specific /24's with no-export communities, but a
>>> consistent set of ISPs are not available at each of the colo's we
>>> are in.
>>>
>>> Is there some other trick I'm missing?
>>
>>
>> If you can't take the traffic from Site A to Site B, why are you
>> announcing the /24s to the world? Why not just use a /24 from the
>> upstream in each location and not force everyone else on the Internet
>> to see your /24 which only has one path?
>
> It doesn't have just one path. Multiple (different) ISPs at each
> location.
Then this is just two instances of the same problem: You have a site
with a /24 and multiple upstreams. How do you aggregate?
Answer: You don't. This is the type of deaggregation which is a
"necessary evil". And, IMHO, why filtering on /20 (or whatever) is a
Bad Thing. You have just as much right to multiple upstreams as the
"big guys". Again, IMHO. Many people on this list - all of them
running large networks, you will notice - would argue otherwise. They
seem to think that if you do not have a /16, you should not have
multiple upstreams.
Fortunately, the market, and the Internet, has clearly spoken.
Unfortunately, they may have spoken a little too loudly, and now we
have "/24s run amuck". :)
--
TTFN,
patrick
More information about the NANOG
mailing list