[ppml] Draft 2 of proposal for ip assignment with sponsorship
forrest at almighty.c64.org
Fri Feb 28 09:53:24 EST 2003
On Fri, 28 Feb 2003, Alec H. Peterson wrote:
> > If you filter my /24 from my provider's aggregate, what exactly is the
> > point of me multihoming? If I lose connectivity with that upstream,
> > you'll no longer be able to reach me because you won't hear my /24
> > announcement from my other upstream. To me, it doesn't seem acceptable
> > to filter out multihoming /24's at all. Creating a micro allocation
> > policy would seem to address this issue. Create a block of addresses
> > that /24's won't get filtered from, while still allowing everyone to
> > filter out the garbage more specific /24's from elsewhere.
> You are forgetting that each network provider is free to decide which
> routes it will carry. Just because you connect to provider 'a' and
> provider 'b' does not mean that provider 'c' has to listen to each and
> every route that 'a' and 'b' carry.
> Now I grant that filtering more specifics of an aggregate does reduce the
> benefit of multi-homing, but my point is that keeping things the way they
> are at least gives service providers a way to keep the network running in
> the event that their routers can't handle the large routing table size.
> Wouldn't you agree that in that situation it is better to have a reduced
> benefit to your multi-homing than have an entire backbone shutdown?
If every backbone network filtered out my multihomed /24, how exactly
would this only be a reduced benefit to my multihoming? This would be a
complete waste of time for me. When packets destined for me hit a
defaultless router, where do you think the packet is going to go? Toward
the ISP that has the large aggregate, which I have lost connectivity with.
More information about the ARIN-PPML