[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Full routes needed at sites? [Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?]

To: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
Subject: Re: Full routes needed at sites? [Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?]
From: masataka ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 18:18:18 +0900
Cc: Jeroen Massar <jeroen@unfix.org>, 'Iljitsch van Beijnum' <iljitsch@muada.com>, multi6@ops.ietf.org
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310131152410.11870-100000@netcore.fi>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0310131152410.11870-100000@netcore.fi>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax)

Pekka;

It's possible to remove the default route for the other ISP if it's
broken, or to add more specifics to point to the working ISP if necessary.

Exactly. And the easiest way to do so is to have full route.

If you are not convinced, here is a reality check.

How many of multihomed (non-transit) entities today are using the default-only approach?

Masataka Ohta

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Full routes needed at sites? [Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?]
  - From: Juan Rodriguez Hervella <jrh@it.uc3m.es>
- Re: Full routes needed at sites? [Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?]
  - From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>

References:
- Re: Full routes needed at sites? [Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?]
  - From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>

Prev by Date: Re: Full routes needed at sites? [Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?]
Next by Date: Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?
Previous by thread: Re: Full routes needed at sites? [Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?]
Next by thread: Re: Full routes needed at sites? [Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread