RE: draft-kurtis-multihoming-longprefix comments

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

On Tue, 7 Jan 2003, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > The *only* way to aggregate *which is useful to the routing* is based on
> > *actual connectivity* - i.e. the actual ability send packets. Ownership of box
> > X and box Y is basically irrelevent (although policty routing may use it for
> > *additional* constraints), from the routing's point of view. If box X and box
> > Y are connected by a wire - now, that's different.
> 
> Suppose ASes 1, 2, 3 and 4 are all present with one router in Chicago,
> NYC, Dallas and LA and they all interconnect there. Each router has 100
> customer routes. So you can aggregate and have 400 internal and 3
> external routes in each AS. [...]

Is this for real?

If you can assume some sane address plan which provides aggregation, each
AS would have about 7 routes in each router plus 100 local routes in each.
There is idea use passing the customer routes even in internal routing if
you can aggregate.  Ideally these kind of static routes are just a problem
of a single aggregation device.

Just to be sure we're not comparing apples to oranges..

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings