[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: v6 multihoming and route filters
On 6-jul-2006, at 14:36, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
where is the "global routing table"? How is it defined?
Either as a particular instance (i.e., taken from one router) of the
set of routes that allow connectivity to the internet at large or the
set of prefixes that make up the address space used on the internet.
Obviously this can be made as complex as desired.
In zero cases that I am aware of, can any given node running
IP reach any other arbitrary node running IP.
What does that prove?
I posit that this "global routing table" is a myth. The -ONLY-
thing that matters to me are are the entries in -MY- routers memory.
How they get there is -MY- choice and I get to dictate what is placed
there. What you have in -YOUR- routers is your business.
That's nice for you but I'm glad that you're not my ISP because I
don't think personal preference has an important place in running a
global network. Not only because different people have different
preferences, but also because it doesn't scale.
But we were talking about inter-domain routing. Filtering on prefix
size is a very useful technique that does indeed have unfortunate
side effects. But if you want to get rid of this technique you'll
have to come up with something to replace it... Not filtering is not
a reasonable long-term strategy.
I never said not filtering was an option. Proxy aggregation is
Not with BGP as it exists today, and security issues are quite
problematic with this.
IF this draft is to have any credibility, the only choice will be to
describe what prefix size filtering is, what the ramifications
what the "unfortunate side effects" are. As an ION, one might
that given the implementation constraints of 2006, an operator might
consider the merits of selecting certain prefix sizes, if they choose
to use prefix-sized filters in their routers. Two distinct
I disagree. Having a prefix that works in 98% of all cases is not
nearly as useful as one that works in 99.98% of all cases. Having a
free-for-all with regard to prefix filtering is suboptimal. And I
think now we're back to the original issue so this is a nice point to
have a go at letting the discussion rest. :-)
IMHO of course. The IETF will do what/as it pleases.
Given rough consensus, yes.