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

Clue Store cluestore at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 13:09:49 CST 2009


I think you're missing my point and did not read my post completely.

First off, BGP was never mentioned in my post.

By the time these 'dreamers' want to announce a /29 to multiple providers
and have everyone accept them with this new light weight protocol you speak
about, there will hopefully be no /29's (as in v4 host sub-nets) as I dream
that IPv4 will be a forgotten protocol by the time BGP is replaced by this
magical protocol that does not exist in any form as today.

If I accept a /29 for the minority and pass that prefix along to the next
provider, I have to accept it for the majority and pass them along to the
next provider. And these 500 company's you speak about, the other blocks
given back to <insert RIR or LIR here> would be hashed back out which WOULD
still increase prefixes in the global table as they want to advertise their
/29's. I agree that it would save v4 space right now for those who wouldn't
announce the remainder /29's, but you're thinking short term as we all know
that v4 space has out-welcomed it's stay (thank you NAT). Yes, it will run
paraellel for 3, 5, maybe 7 years until enough folks get a clue and make the
switch to v6, but in the end, v4 will go away.

Having all that said, I am not knocking the 'dreamers' out there one bit. I
encourage new ideas to help solve issues that we've discussed in this very
thread. But at this point, there's more dreaming than solutions and revenue.
And de-aggreation is one of the biggest problems with global routing today.
Add v6 and the possibility of /48's being permitted into the global table,
and most folks with a router from any vendor today couldn't support a full
global table.

I'll stop my rant at that, but again, im not knocking the dreamers. I'm just
having to deal with more problems that don't have valid solutions today.

Clue
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Dave Israel <davei at otd.com> wrote:

>
> 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