nanog mailing list archives
Re: verio arrogance
From: Stephen Stuart <stuart () tech org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:07:37 -0700
I can't really see why, as long as the provider has punched the appropriate hole for your aggregate in their filters. More specific routes always win out. Or am I missing your point?
The point, I think, is the effort involved in using global route announcements to solve your traffic engineering problems. When you use provider-assigned space, you have to coordinate your intent to add entries to the global routing table with the provider who assigned the space and the providers that you want to accept the new routes. When you use provider-independent space, you get to decide to add entries to the global routing table pretty much all by yourself, modulo running afoul of the occasional provider that does not, by default, buy into solving local traffic engineering problems in other people's networks using global routing table entries. Stephen
Current thread:
- Re: istop arrogance, (continued)
- Re: istop arrogance Ralph Doncaster (Jul 27)
- Re: istop arrogance Richard A Steenbergen (Jul 27)
- Re: istop arrogance Ralph Doncaster (Jul 27)
- Re: verio arrogance up (Jul 18)
- Re: verio arrogance Ralph Doncaster (Jul 18)
- RE: verio arrogance Daniel Golding (Jul 18)
- Re: verio arrogance Peter E. Fry (Jul 18)
- Re: verio arrogance Kai Schlichting (Jul 18)
- RE: verio arrogance Phil Rosenthal (Jul 18)
- Re: verio arrogance Jared Mauch (Jul 18)
- RE: verio arrogance Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Jul 19)
- RE: verio arrogance Daniel Golding (Jul 19)
- RE: verio arrogance Stephen J. Wilcox (Jul 19)