nanog mailing list archives
Re: Routes and routing tables
From: Avi Freedman <freedman () netaxs com>
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 00:33:13 -0400 (EDT)
Sometimes more-specifics are needed to compete against more-specifics being incorrectly advertised by other people. Sometimes folks _insist_ on cutouts, and you have to go route-to-route against them if you want to keep your block intact. I hate this, it's bad business, I don't do it myself, I don't let my customers do it, but I've seen it often enough to have it be worth mentioning.
If you've got a larger block (say, a /16) and a customer with a /24 becomes dual-homed and wants to split the incoming traffic on his links, you're stuck advertising the /24 as well as the /16; otherwise, their 2nd provider will always win for incoming traffic from most of the 'net... However, the 2nd path to a route consumes a LOT less memory than an additional path. We do this for 1 customer right now, and possibly 1 in the near future. Luckily, the demand for this is mostly limited to ISPs rather than other types of companies... Avi
Current thread:
- Routes and routing tables Christian Nielsen (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Robert Bowman (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Jon Zeeff (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Paul A Vixie (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Avi Freedman (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Curtis Villamizar (Apr 29)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Avi Freedman (Apr 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Routes and routing tables Avi Freedman (Apr 27)
- Re: Routes and routing tables Robert Bowman (Apr 27)