nanog mailing list archives
RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
From: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer () mhsc com>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 11:55:27 -0700
Sorry, I thought we were discussing all multi-homing. Your example doesn't help the business whose ISP suffers a business failure (such as DSLnetworks, Flashpoint, et al), only the case where the access provider fails SLA. To put it bluntly, a single circuit, to a single business, while annoying, doesn't cause wide-spread outages when it fails. It is thus, the lesser-order case. The case I thought was under discussion is when an ISP dumps something on the order of 10^3 or more customers when they fail. I understand that NorthPoint abandoned ~100,000 customers when they sold their backbone to AT&T and AT&T didn't pick up the subscribers. I will wager that many of them were /24s. DSLnetworks had over 700 Covad customers, FlashPoint was larger. For various definitions of "wide-spread", this is a much larger issue than a broken copper-pair. I suspect that it also has a much higher likelyhood of occurance. Especially, in the current business shakeout. Guess what ... it won't stop. This sort of problem will be with us forever. We should find a solution ... someday ... ya think? Business failures are on one side of the problem and CIDR aggregation is on the other.
-----Original Message----- From: RJ Atkinson [mailto:rja () inet org] Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 11:26 AM To: Roeland Meyer Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers At 13:55 03/04/01, Roeland Meyer wrote:The problem with this, if done, is that we back right intothe other problemof prefix filtering.No. These are separate tail circuits to separate POPs of the same ISP. So that one ISP only needs to advertise its fully aggregated prefix. So the problem you postulate does not arise in this particular situation.What is the other ISP to do?You didn't read closely enough. 2 tail circuits, 2 POPs, but only 1 ISP was the scenario outlined. It works quite well, provided one picks the ISP thoughtfully. Ran
Current thread:
- Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers, (continued)
- Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Jesper Skriver (Apr 04)
- Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Travis Pugh (Apr 04)
- Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Greg Maxwell (Apr 03)
- Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers hardie (Apr 03)
- RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Irwin Lazar (Apr 03)
- RE[2]: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Dee McKinney (Apr 03)
- RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Barrows, Jeff (Apr 03)
- RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Roeland Meyer (Apr 03)
- RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Travis Pugh (Apr 03)
- RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Tony Barber (Apr 04)
- RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Roeland Meyer (Apr 03)
- RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers RJ Atkinson (Apr 03)
- RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Randy Bush (Apr 03)
- RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers David Schwartz (Apr 03)
- RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers RJ Atkinson (Apr 03)
- Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Stephen Griffin (Apr 04)
- Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Gary E. Miller (Apr 04)
- RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Matt Levine (Apr 04)
- Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Stephen Griffin (Apr 04)
- Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Valdis . Kletnieks (Apr 04)
- Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers Henry Yen (Apr 05)
