nanog mailing list archives
RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
From: <michael.dillon () bt com>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 21:54:13 +0100
However, if they were transit-free, they would, by definition, never have more than one peer for any single-homed prefix.
And that sounds like a single point of failure to me. Let's look at it another way by considering the path to any prefix. If there is only one single path available, and a single event, such as the depeering by one ASN, can lead to that path being broken, then you have a network whose connectivity is not terribly robust. If a network bites the bullet, and either openly buys transit, or works out some partnership peering plus transit deal to hide the fact that they have transit, then there is the possibility of having two paths for every prefix. If they then take the trouble to analyze the paths and adjust things to make sure that the multiple paths to a single prefix don't share fate, then they stand a good chance of having a robust network. The thinking, and the work involved, are a lot like what you need to do in order to ensure physical separacy of fibre paths. It's the same fundamental problem but perhaps more dynamic since circuits tend to get groomed less often than paths change. --Michael Dillon
Current thread:
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter, (continued)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Pekka Savola (Sep 21)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Warren Kumari (Sep 21)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Deepak Jain (Sep 21)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Pekka Savola (Sep 21)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Jon Lewis (Sep 22)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Joe Provo (Sep 22)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter michael.dillon (Sep 23)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Bill Woodcock (Sep 23)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter michael.dillon (Sep 23)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Bill Woodcock (Sep 23)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter michael.dillon (Sep 23)
- Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin Raymond L. Corbin (Sep 23)
- Re: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 23)
- RE: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin Raymond L. Corbin (Sep 23)
- Re: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin Ken Simpson (Sep 24)
- RE: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin Jason J. W. Williams (Sep 24)
- Re: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin Al Iverson (Sep 24)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Jon Lewis (Sep 23)
- pointing default (was Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter) Randy Bush (Sep 23)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter John A. Kilpatrick (Sep 21)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter James Jun (Sep 22)