You have hit the nail on the head. I don't argue with route filtering, just the hoops that I had to go through with Genuity as compared to my other providers. At the time, the fastest line available in my location was T1 and I was having to load balance between providers and lines by advertising small pieces out different lines.
"Martin, Christian" wrote: > I think the argument is not about route filtering - it is the implementation > method. > > Genuity uses ip extended access-lists. > > Everyone else uses prefix-lists. > > To a purist, the former is more granular, but performs poorly because it is > a linked list implementation. The later, while less granular, performs > faster by using a trie. It also allows insertion without list rebuilding. > Does this matter much? I'm sure there are some that have tested convergence > between the two technologies, so I'd welcome comments out of curiosity. > > They are somewhat anal with their lists as well. If you have a /19, but you > want to deaggregate for inbound BGP TE, you will need to send them EVERY > route you will send. That can be 64 subnets. For a /16, it is waaayyy > worse. Then again, it allows them to know exactly how many prefixes MAY be > announced from their customers, which I suppose has its merits. > > chris > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 2:08 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: genuity - any good? > > > > > > > >> 1) Their BGP polices are not as good as others. They force you to > >> register each route you want to advertise rather than > >allowing you to > >> advertise any reasonable route for your prefixes. According > >to one of > >> their top people, prefix-lists were unreliable new technology. We > >> gave up and canceled the circuit. > > > >Man I don't know of a provider that doesn't do this - but the > >fact is this is a good thing. > >