The Cidr Report

Stephen J. Wilcox steve at telecomplete.co.uk
Sun Feb 13 23:22:10 UTC 2005


On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Michael Smith wrote:

> > From: "Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190" <warren at kumari.net>
> > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 10:14:38 -0500
> > To: <nanog at merit.edu>
> > Subject: Re: The Cidr Report
> > 
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> > 
> > 
> > On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sat, 12 Feb 2005, Alexander Koch wrote:
> >> 
> >>> On Sat, 12 February 2005 14:58:42 +0000, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> >>>> From: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve at telecomplete.co.uk>
> >>>> [...]   - would you agree that most of the poor deaggregating is not
> >>>> intentional
> >>>> ie that they're announcing their '16 class Cs' or historically had 2
> >>>> /21s and
> >>> 
> >>> Think about someone putting in a Null0 route and re-
> >>> exporting stuff unconditionally, now after he originates
> >>> his /19 he is then adding a /24 here, and a /25 there.
> >>> Lack of experience, when you suggest to them they should
> >>> remove these announcements they are afraid to change it,
> >>> not understanding the implications, etc.
> >>> 
> >>> Not to mention ppl using cisco and prefix lists, it is
> >>> way too easy with cisco to say '/19 le 24', and then they
> >>> use outbound prefix lists to their transit supplier
> >>> (different, but related as I see it). Some transit ISPs
> >>> use that a lot, and encourage the table growth.
> >> 
> >> There are some business reasons to de-aggregate. Look at some outages
> >> caused by 'routing problems' (someone leaked my /24's to their peers,
> >> peers, peer and my traffic got blackholed, because the public net only
> >> knows me as a /20)
> >> 
> >> There are multiple reasons for deaggregation aside from 'dumb
> >> operator',
> >> some are even 'valid' if you look at them from the protection
> >> standpoint.
> >> 
> >> -Chris
> > 
> > That and the "I have 1 circuit to $good_provider and 1 circuit to
> > $bad_provider and the only way I can make them balance is to split my
> > space in half and announce more specifics out through each provider"
> > argument. I have also often seen people do this without announcing the
> > aggregate because   <some undefined bad thing> will happen, usually
> > justified with much hand-waving.  The people who do this can usually
> > not be reasoned with....
> > 
> > It happens all the time...
> > 
> > Warren.
> 
> So, say  I'm a provider that has received a /22 from UUNet (just for example
> Chris :-) ) and I now get another transit provider and announce the /22
> there.  So, I call UUNet and ask them to announce the /22 as a more specific
> because I don't want a de-facto asymmetric configuration.  I *want* to get a
> /20 from ARIN but my usage doesn't justify it yet, so I have to ride the /22
> for some time.

Hi Mike,
 this isnt the scenario being discussed. The scenario of issue is where you get 
your /22 from UUNET and announce 4x /24 ie based on what ips you have you choose 
to announce more than the minimum to make them routable

> By the long string of anecdotal attacks in the string to date, listing most or
> all such providers as "bad" or "uninformed" how do you separate out those
> providers who are legitimately interested in routing redundancy and not clue
> impaired?  Do we just say "too bad, routing table bloat is more important than
> your need for redundancy small guy!"?

As I say this isnt the issue here, altho what you suggest would be an example
of further aggregation that i personally think is extreme. Multihoming must be 
possible and a hierarchical structure to the internet is not appropriate.

> I find it interesting that the general theme is one of "we're smarter than
> they are because we aggregate more routes" as if clue were directly correlated
> to aggregated routing announcements.

Well, there does seem to be some loose correlation it cant be denied... (counter 
examples not required, we know they exist)

Steve





More information about the NANOG mailing list