North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: /24s run amuck again
- From: Geoff Huston
- Date: Sun Jun 10 03:58:05 2001
At 6/10/01 02:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Taken together, the pair of statements above is a pretty good illustration
of the issues at play in the inter-provider space today. Wanting to
optimize traffic loads over multiple connections is not unreasonable as an
objective, but having the entire world see your resultant advertisements is
not the best of outcomes.
>> but if you are not paying me, what reasons are there for me to spend my
>> resources (route bloat) so you can engineer your traffic?
well, we agree so far :-)
> Now tell me how to promulgate my TE-triggering routing advertisements
> precisely to the edge of my payment boundary (i.e. my upstreams, and
> their upstreams, and so on recursively along the upstream relationships)
> and no further, using today's BGP?
but why should i pay the costs because the tool was not designed to do what
you want done?
i will happily work on tool design with you . but, in the meantime, why
should i have to pay a penalty for your odd business choices?
If you are on my upstream chain, then I am accompanying my routing
requirements with money. Whatever penalty you may incur I pay for with my
upstream payment. Where your statement holds is once you are not seeing
money from me (i.e. you are not an upstream paid directly or indirectly by
me), in which case what would help us all is a recognised [*] community
attribute which says "advertise this prefix together with this attribute
only to your upstreams"
[*] 'well if you don't recognise it then I am less interested in having you
as my upstream than if you do.
( casual readers should note that 'you' and 'i' are abstract terms, and
that geoff usually claims to be more of a capitalist than i :-)