nanog mailing list archives
Re: FW: /8s and filtering
From: tim.thorne () btinternet com (Tim Thorne)
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:00:24 GMT
David Schwartz <davids () webmaster com> wrote:
Not only would this increase the size of the global routing table, but this would actually decrease reliability for most basement multihomers. Basement multihomers tend to flap their routes more often than their upstreams. By not being inside a larger aggregate, these flaps are likely to result in more significant pockets of unreachability than they would be otherwise.
Have any of the major players ever tried cleaning up in the basement multihoming market? It seems to me that a pair of well positioned regional ISPs could easily share an aggregate, use it exclusively for multihomers thus alleviating the strain on the global routing table while giving their customers good visibility in the routing table. Tim
Current thread:
- Re: FW: /8s and filtering, (continued)
- Re: FW: /8s and filtering bmanning (Dec 10)
- Re: FW: /8s and filtering Harsha Narayan (Dec 10)
- Re: FW: /8s and filtering bmanning (Dec 10)
- Re: FW: /8s and filtering Harsha Narayan (Dec 10)
- Re: FW: /8s and filtering Stephen J. Wilcox (Dec 10)
- Re: FW: /8s and filtering bmanning (Dec 10)
- Re: FW: /8s and filtering David Schwartz (Dec 10)
- Re: FW: /8s and filtering Harsha Narayan (Dec 10)
- Re: FW: /8s and filtering N (Dec 10)
- Re: FW: /8s and filtering David Schwartz (Dec 10)
- Re: FW: /8s and filtering Tim Thorne (Dec 11)
- RE: FW: /8s and filtering Harsha Narayan (Dec 10)
- RE: FW: /8s and filtering Brian (Dec 10)
- RE: FW: /8s and filtering Harsha Narayan (Dec 10)
- RE: FW: /8s and filtering Brian (Dec 10)
- RE: FW: /8s and filtering Harsha Narayan (Dec 10)