nanog mailing list archives

Re: genuity - any good?


From: Roy <garlic () garlic com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:04:42 -0700


You have hit the nail on the head.  I don't argue with route filtering, just the
hoops that I had to go through with Genuity as compared to my other providers.
At the time, the fastest line available in my location was T1 and I was having
to load balance between providers and lines by advertising small pieces out
different lines.


"Martin, Christian" wrote:

I think the argument is not about route filtering - it is the implementation
method.

Genuity uses ip extended access-lists.

Everyone else uses prefix-lists.

To a purist, the former is more granular, but performs poorly because it is
a linked list implementation.  The later, while less granular, performs
faster by using a trie.  It also allows insertion without list rebuilding.
Does this matter much?  I'm sure there are some that have tested convergence
between the two technologies, so I'd welcome comments out of curiosity.

They are somewhat anal with their lists as well.  If you have a /19, but you
want to deaggregate for inbound BGP TE, you will need to send them EVERY
route you will send.  That can be 64 subnets.  For a /16, it is waaayyy
worse.  Then again, it allows them to know exactly how many prefixes MAY be
announced from their customers, which I suppose has its merits.

chris

-----Original Message-----
From: neil () DOMINO ORG [mailto:neil () DOMINO ORG]
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2002 2:08 PM
To: garlic () garlic com
Cc: matthew () velvet org; nanog () merit edu
Subject: Re: genuity - any good?



1) Their BGP polices are not as good as others.  They force you to
register each route you want to advertise rather than
allowing you to
advertise any reasonable route for your prefixes.  According
to one of
their top people, prefix-lists were unreliable new technology.  We
gave up and canceled the circuit.

Man I don't know of a provider that doesn't do this - but the
fact is this is a good thing.



Current thread: