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

Dave Israel davei at
Tue Nov 3 19:30:43 UTC 2009

Clue Store wrote:
> I think you're missing my point and did not read my post completely.
> First off, BGP was never mentioned in my post.

Oops, you are correct.  Somebody else said "BGP."  You spoke of the
existing table, and so I had BGP in my mind, and I muddled the two
together.  Mea culpa.

> 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.

That assumes that there isn't a solution that requires constant presence
in the global table, instead of a
tell-me-about-this-prefix-when-I-need-it-and-not-before method.  I admit
that there hasn't been a good solution to the problem yet, but that
doesn't mean there isn't one.  I'm not sure it has been seriously
researched in recent years.

> 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.

No, but providers having to upgrade software or hardware to support the
needs of the network in 3, 5, or 7 years isn't anything new, and neither
is router vendors coming up with incremental software or hardware
upgrades to make boxes do what they can't do now.


More information about the NANOG mailing list