On Nov 14, 2012, at 1:50 PM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 3:10 PM, Michael Smith <mksm...@mac.com> wrote: >> I guess I'm confused. I have a /32 that I have broken up >> into /47's for my discrete POP locations. I don't have a >> network between them, by design. And, I won't >> announce the /32 covering route because there is >> no single POP that can take requests for the entire >> /32 - think regionalized anycast. >> >> So, how is it "worse" to announce the deaggregated >> /47's versus getting a /32 for every POP? In either >> case, I'm going to put the same number of routes into the DFZ. > > Hi Michael, > > If you announce an ISP /32 from each POP (or an end-user /48, /47, > etc) then I know that a neutral third party has vetted your proposed > network configuration and confirmed that the routes are disaggregated > because the network architecture requires it. If you announce a /47 > from your ISP space, for all I know you're trying to tweak utilization > on your ISP uplinks. > Again, I thought the discussion was about PI, not PA. I don't announce any PA.
> In the former case, the protocols are capable of what they're capable > of. Discrete multihomed network, discrete announcement. Like it or > lump it. > > In the latter case, I don't particularly need to burn resources on my > router half a world away to facilitate your traffic tweaking. Let the > ISPs you're paying for the privilege carry your more-specifics. > You have great confidence in the immutability of design and the description thereof. Mike
