Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
From: Chris Adams <cmadams () hiwaay net>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 14:04:24 -0600


Once upon a time, Edward B. DREGER <eddy+public+spam () noc everquick net> said:
No, it is not unworkable.  Think through it a bit more.  Although the 
problem is theoretically O(N^2), in practice it is closer to O(N).  Note 
that _routing itself_ is theoretically an O(N^2) problem.  Do we say 
that it is "unworkable obviously"?  No.

There's a difference: computers (routers) handle the O(N^2) routing
problem, while people would have to handle the O(N^2) cooperative AS
problem.

Yes, one ASN is required per cooperating pair.  Just how many pairs do 
you think there are?  Now compare with the number of leaves that [would 
[like to]] dual-home.

We are a relatively small ISP with just a handful of multihoming
customers.  However, no two of them have the same other provider.  What
is gained by us setting up relationships with a bunch of other providers
and getting special ASes assigned?  What if one of those customers gets
a connection to a third upstream, or if they change their upstream?
Right now, it doesn't affect us (we don't have to do anything), but in
your setup, it would require us to get yet another AS.

Only one of our multihoming customers has a connection to someone we
already have a connection with, so there's no path between our network
and the rest.

-- 
Chris Adams <cmadams () hiwaay net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]