Russ White wrote:
Injecting an aggregate as a point of last resort:
I think this can be done today and probably is done today. But a document
describing how to do it would probably be helpful. I'm thinking along the
following lines:
The AoLR (Aggregate of Last Resort) service would entail a service
provider
announcing the aggregate without necessarily providing connectivity
towards
all the places announcing more specifics covered by the aggregate. So if
ISP A
announces the AoLR and ISP B provides connectivity to a more specific, ISP
C
would send traffic to A as per the aggregate and then A would immediately
hand it over to B.
Or perhaps something simpler would work here -- bounding longest match.
:-)
Russ
No.
Now we've "solved" the address space issue, we focus back on routing
table size angst. History repeats.
My (tiny) datapoint on multinationals is that they're simply grabbing
/32's (or as big as possible space) from multiple registries as soon as
possible: remembering how much of a battle it was in IPv4 to get PI
space properly routed, and assuming that this same discussion would
resurface in IPv6, and that maximum prefix length would once again
become a hot topic..... short prefixes are "better". Get 'em now while
you can.
This is natural behaviour, unless there's a less blunt instrument
applied to managing BGP routing table size than simply restricting
maximum prefix length per peer. e.g. RIR charge being dependent on the
number of global routing slot entries, rather than purely on address
space allocation size.
And yes, of course, de-aggregation is a potentially serious DOS vector.
Meanwhile, renumbering is still hard.
--
Regards,
RayH
_______________________________________________
GROW mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
