small site multi-homing (related to: Small guys with BGP issues)

Dave Israel davei at otd.com
Tue Nov 3 12:21:40 CST 2009


Clue Store wrote:
> Well you and the rest of these so called "dreamers" can help with the
> purchase of my new routers that don't exist yet to support you wanting to
> multi-home a /29 and have the rest of the Internet world hold all of these
> said /29's in their tables. Most folks who get a /29's don't care how they
> get to and from the internet, they just want to always be able to get there.
> TE at that granular of a level is not needed. So in other words, you and the
> rest of the world of these dreamers can keep dreaming, because I doubt any
> sensible ISP would accept and pass along anyone announcing /29's .... and
> then there's V6, which I won't even get started on. Most ISP's are having a
> hard time holding 300k ipv4 routes as of today, and you want to de-aggregate
> even farther??
>   

It's clear that you have some impatience with deaggregation, and with
cause.  However, there are a few flaws in your position.  The first is
that you contradicted yourself.  If most folks who get a /29 don't care
how they get to and from the Internet, then there won't be a flood of
new /29s.  It is the minority who do care how they get to and from the
Internet who will be adding routes.  Currently, they are doing so by
getting more address space than they need assigned, so as to have a
block large enough to be heard.  If 500 companies are currently
announcing /24s to be heard, but could be moved to /29s, then you still
have 500 route announcements.  You just have a lot less waste.

The second is that you said "BGP."  Mike didn't say BGP.  He said he was
dreaming of the future.  That future coudl easily include a lightweight
multihoming protocol, something that informs interested parties of
presence on multiple networks, or allows for extremely fast
reconvergence, so that a second route need only join the routing table
when needed.  And he's right; if I want to change my name to Joe, grab a
sixpack, build a rack in my kitchen, and pay two providers for service,
it isn't unreasonable to want an infrastructure that supports my
configuration.

We shouldn't dismiss a dreamer's dream because it is hard, or we can't
do it right now with what we have.  The desire to do what is not
currently possible is the source of innovation, and we shouldn't shoot
down innovation because it sounds hard and we don't like it.

-Dave





More information about the NANOG mailing list