nanog mailing list archives
Re: aggregation & table entries
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post () rsuc gweep net>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 20:52:44 -0400
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 08:24:09PM +0000, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2004 at 12:54:44PM -0700, Kevin Oberman wrote:Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2004 18:43:45 +0000 From: bmanning () vacation karoshi com seems like a good lead in, so yes - i advocate folks only announce what they use. may play old-hob on the ISP that likes to use some other metric for accepting announcements, (e.g. RIR or other routing registry DB) and will no doubt increase the tension on justification of proxy announcements, but overall, this seems to be a good goal.
Why? This is a serious question, as the bulk of network architectures with which I'm familiar have a wall between IGP and EGP, where the EGP is focused on _stable_ reachability & the IGP is concerned with optimal forwarding path within the AS. Sinking (or darknet detecting or...) unused space and happily shuffling between used & unused without having to worry how it affects your reachability [or its stability] is a generally a Good Thing.
Second, we don't simply assign address space sequentially from our assigned spaces. We have an addressing plan that leaves the assignments
[snip]
so -IF- everyone followed your internal address assignment policies, scattering used space in a sparse matrix throughout the allocated pool, then announing a single prefix (the aggregate) makes sense. Of
[snip] "There are more internal policies on Teh Intarweb than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Internal policies are *internal*, and the usual wall between internal and external policies means that maximal reachibility can be guarenteed with minimal hassle and zero need to have to pick up the phone and convince some random remote AS to change their policies to accept your topology-of-the-week. Seems that any actions that are recommended should be internal policy/topology neutral, no? Should I mention publishing the only the deaggregates-in-use essentially rolls out the red carpet to hijackers letting them know prefixes you *will*not*notice* that they borrow, except when the abuse calls and subpoenas come rolling in? Oh no, that's for later in the thread. Sorry. Joe -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Current thread:
- Re: BCP38 making it work, solving problems, (continued)
- Re: BCP38 making it work, solving problems Randy Bush (Oct 13)
- Re: BCP38 making it work, solving problems Suresh Ramasubramanian (Oct 13)
- Re: BCP38 making it work, solving problems Paul Vixie (Oct 13)
- Re: BCP38 making it work, solving problems Stephen J. Wilcox (Oct 13)
- aggregation & table entries bmanning (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Stephen Stuart (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries bmanning (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries joshua sahala (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Kevin Oberman (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries bmanning (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Joe Provo (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Randy Bush (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Stephen Stuart (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Randy Bush (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Stephen Stuart (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Randy Bush (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Stephen Stuart (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Michael . Dillon (Oct 14)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Pekka Savola (Oct 13)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Daniel Roesen (Oct 14)
- Re: aggregation & table entries Pekka Savola (Oct 14)