[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?]

Juan Rodriguez Hervella;

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 :)

Hello.

Now I see your point. I think it is the easiest way because
BGP takes care of broken paths automatically.


Routing protocols are the protocls to automatically care
(lack of) connectivity.

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....

What end users CAN NOT accept is complex configuration.

A proposal to force end users some action is NO acceptable.

With BGP configuration effort of an end user is variable and,
if most end users can just use AS-path-len, it can be a default
of most routers.

Or, some end users may change weight on length of AS-path
depending on its incoming interface.

Very few will want more advanced control

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

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

Good point, 

It is phychologically unacceptable for operator of a multhomed
site that paid connection to some ISP will NEVER be used.

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

which is what RIRs are doing.

Have fun !