Merit Network
Can't find what you're looking for? Search the Mail Archives.
  About Merit   Services   Network   Resources & Support   Network Research   News   Events   Home

Discussion Communities: Merit Network Email List Archives

North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Customer AS

  • From: Curtis Villamizar
  • Date: Wed Aug 21 21:07:03 1996

In message <199608190722.HAA09446@kantoor.ripe.net>, Daniel Karrenberg writes:
> 
>   > Curtis Villamizar <curtis@ans.net> writes:
>   > 
>   > In message <199608170146.SAA20928@lint.cisco.com>, Paul Ferguson writes:
>   > 
>   > > In fact, the <draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-05.txt> draft indicates
>   > > that this is one of the few acceptable instances when allocation can be
>   > > done by one of the various registries and not by (one of) the upstream
>   > > service provider(s). ...
>   > 
>   > draft-hubbard-registry-guidelines-05.txt is wrong on this one.
> 
> Just for the record: I is one of the few acceptable instances and certainly
> does not represent common practise, to the contrary! All regional IRs 
> recommend using address space from one of the providers. 

I think I remember the logic behind this.  The end user requests
provider independent addresses, insisting that they would sue the
registry if they didn't get them.  The draft discourages this and so
the registry should discourages this but the draft lets them give in.

I still think it would be a better draft if this was more strongly
discouraged.  In 2.1 (page 5):

  current:

       b)  the ISP is multi-homed, that is, it has more than one
           simultaneous connection to the global Internet and no
           connection is favored over the other

   Note that addresses issued directly from the IRs, (non-provider based),
   are the least likely to be routable across the Internet.

  suggested:

       b)  the ISP is multi-homed, that is, it has more than one
           simultaneous connection to the global Internet, no
           connection is favored over the other.  This practice, while
           allowed is strongly discouraged for reasons cited below.

   Note that addresses issued directly from the IRs, (non-provider
   based), are the least likely to be routable across the Internet,
   and cannot be further aggregated at points distant in the topology.
   The more specific routes associated with an dual homed allocations
   from a provider aggregate can be dropped at a sufficient distance
   in the Internet topology.  For example, in most cases, these more
   specifics can be dropped from routing information provided to
   another continent with no change in traffic flow if this very large
   aggregation boundary is successfully implemented.

>   > If the route comes from one of the providers CIDR blocks, the other
>   > more specific route can be ignored farther away in the topology.  If
>   > it is a provider independent address it can't be dropped without
>   > losing connectivity to it.
> 
> Correct.
> 
> Daniel

Consider this a suggestion.  Update the draft at your option.

Curtis
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -




Discussion Communities


About Merit | Services | Network | Resources & Support | Network Research
News | Events | Contact | Site Map | Merit Network Home


Merit Network, Inc.