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: FW: /8s and filtering

  • From: Harsha Narayan
  • Date: Tue Dec 10 14:49:10 2002

Hello,
  Now I am confused because I have got two sets of contradicting answers.
Some say that anyone can multihome, some say that you need to be of a
certain minimum size to multihome. May I know what is the right answer?

  I agree that allowing anyone to multihome would increase the size of the
routing table. So does this mean that someone has to be of a certain size
to multihome?

Harsha.

On Tue, 10 Dec 2002, David Schwartz wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2002 12:36:39 -0600 (CST), Forrest wrote:
>
> >Maybe I'm missing something, but what good would it do for someone to
> >multihome if only their own providers accept their route, but nobody else
> >does?  I realize that their block should be still announced with their
> >ISP's larger aggregate, but what good does this do if your ISP goes down
> >and can't announce the large aggregate.
>
> 	Smaller multihomers elect to multihome for a variety of reasons. Those
> reasons typically include latency reduction and toleration of POP failures,
> router failures, and line failures. They're not looking to stay online is
> Sprint or MCI disappears entirely.
>
> 	If you multihomed to 2 providers in this manner and made a table of all your
> downtime and its causes, loss of the larger aggregate would the tiniest
> fraction of your downtime, which is already a tiny fraction of the time.
>
> 	We don't put parachutes on commuter jets. The failures where
> these would be helpful are but the tineiest fraction of the failures that
> occur.  And any significant failure at all of such a redundant system is
> rare.
>
> >If you're a smaller organization, perhaps you'll only have a /23 from your
> >upstream provider.  With the filtering that seems to be in place, it seems
> >like the only way you can truly multihome with a /23 is if it happens to
> >be in the old Class C space.  Or is this wrong?
>
> 	You're just biasing the question with the choice of words you use ...
> "truly" multihome.
>
> >What seems to be needed is perhaps a /8 set aside by the RIR specifically
> >to allocate to small organizations that wish to multihome that people
> >would accept /24 and shorter from.
>
> 	Not only would this increase the size of the global routing table, but this
> would actually decrease reliability for most basement multihomers. Basement
> multihomers tend to flap their routes more often than their upstreams. By not
> being inside a larger aggregate, these flaps are likely to result in more
> significant pockets of unreachability than they would be otherwise.
>
> 	DS
>
>






Discussion Communities


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


Merit Network, Inc.