Re: RIR bashing, was: Routing table size?

[Juan Rodriguez Hervella <jrh@it.uc3m.es>]

On Sunday 12 October 2003 17:35, masataka ohta wrote:
> Jeroen;
>
> > I personally see the situation where I would get two
> > independent ISP's, eg a cable and ADSL provider. They don't
> > have to know anything about eachother. The only thing they do
> > is that they each route a prefix from and to me as delegated out
> > of their TLA. My boxes thus would get 2 prefixes.
>
> And, you want to have 2 exit routers, if you want to avoid a single
> point of failure.

IMO, you don't have to have a global routing table to do this.


>
> Then, you want to have full route in your site to choose the best
> exit router for each destination.
>

The same here.



> Or, you may develop a complex protocol on hosts and exit routers
> that a host first query exit routers (multiple ones, of course)
> to choose a source address and routers between the host and
> the exit routers perform source address based routing (or,
> the host may use tunneling to the exit routers), even in which
> case, the exit routers must have a global routing table.
>

Do you need to have a global routing table to make "source based routing" ?
(I thought it was just the opposite, you should need a global routing table to
make "destination based routing")

Cheers.


> This is why the global routing table should be reasonably small.
>
> 						Masataka Ohta

-- 
JFRH