nanog mailing list archives
RE: BGP Growth projections
From: "Ray Burkholder" <ray () oneunified net>
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:51:28 -0300
On 2009-07-12-06:09:12, Arie Vayner <arievayner () gmail com> wrote:Unless you are a major transit operator (which beats the "small ISP" requirement), you don't really need a full view, and can do we a limited view with a default route.Disagree. Protection against big-provider depeerings, interdomain capacity problems, etc is increasingly relevant to smaller sites interested in getting business done. While some will outsource this protection their (non-transit-free) provider, others enjoy maintaining this granularity of control themselves...
Specifically, with full routes, us "small ISP" people can match ASNs with traffic in Netflow to see where our traffic goes/comes from, and thus do capacity/link/peer/transit/traffic planning and problem mitigation. -- Scanned for viruses and dangerous content at http://www.oneunified.net and is believed to be clean.
Current thread:
- BGP Growth projections Mark Radabaugh (Jul 10)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Jon Lewis (Jul 10)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Joel Jaeggli (Jul 10)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Randy Bush (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Iljitsch van Beijnum (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Adam Rothschild (Jul 10)
- RE: BGP Growth projections Ivan Pepelnjak (Jul 11)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Arie Vayner (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Adam Rothschild (Jul 12)
- RE: BGP Growth projections Ray Burkholder (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Jon Lewis (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Arie Vayner (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Mark Radabaugh (Jul 12)
- Re: BGP Growth projections Justin Shore (Jul 12)
- RE: BGP Growth projections Tomas L. Byrnes (Jul 12)