Re: A new spin on multihoming: multihoming classes.

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>]

On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Randy Bush wrote:

> > That BGP implementations need to get better and stop muliplying flaps?

> if indeed bgp does that, and it is detrimental to stability, convergence,
> etc., then i would think that fixing this would be one (possibly small)
> tactical action to progress toward the goals i thought i was outlining.

Have a look at RIPE document 210, section 3.1:
http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-210.html

> > If we want an 8k routing table

> maybe i need to be more explicit.  it is not clear to me that this is a
> useful criterion.

Hence the "if". Just looking at the implications.

> > if we allow PI and/or /48s out of PA space in the DFZ without any
> > restrictions

> i am not aware of this being seriously proposed.  the discussions i am
> hearing imply /[23..36] in the inter-provider dfz.  /48s are for sites,
> and i for one, am not inclined to recommend listening to /48s from peers.

I think the large networks won't (although they will announce them to
peers if customers pay them for that), but I think the small networks will
listen to them at exchange points. It's cheaper for them to buy some extra
memory for their router and route traffic to as many /48s as possible over
the exchange rather than to the networks the /48s belong to, since that
connection will very likely be transit and cost them money.

Iljitsch van Beijnum