Failover how much complexity will it add?
joelja at bogus.com
Thu Nov 12 19:40:51 CST 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.
More information about the NANOG