Failover how much complexity will it add?
Joel Jaeggli
joelja at bogus.com
Fri Nov 13 01:40:51 UTC 2009
Randy Bush wrote:
>> It has been routinely observed in nanog presentations that settlement
>> free providers by their nature miss a few prefixes that well connected
>> transit purchasing ISPs carry.
>
> just trying to understand what you mean,
>
> o no transit-free provider actually has all (covering) prefixes needed
> to cover the active space, but
>
> o one or more reasonably small subsets of the set of transit-free
> providers do cover the whole active space.
If your goal is near-complete coverage, under normal circumstances you
need more than one (your subset). Settlement-free provider peering spats
are a degenerate condition of the normal state of affairs. The
non-settlement-free provider has some subset already.
Pointing default into a settlement-free provider, that is deliberately
not speaking to another is obviously a recipe to lose data, which speaks
to the question of whether one should as for a full table from
settlement free upstreams.
My somewhat obtuse point was that this isn't some wild west frontier
justice sort of affair, but rather, the normal state of affairs.
> randy
>
More information about the NANOG
mailing list