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

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

On Monday 13 October 2003 11:18, masataka ohta wrote:
> 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.

Hello Ohta :)

Now I see your point. I think it is the easiest way because
BGP takes care of broken paths automatically. On the other
hand, there are other possibilites which doesn't imply the need
of full routing. E. g, you could check connectivity with your upstream
provider and realise when that is broken to divert traffic to the
other exit router....

> 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

Good point, though I don't think the IPv4-way of doing multihomed things
should be the example to follow for IPv6-multihomed sites...

Have fun !


-- 
JFRH