FW: more specific routes in today reality
Koepp, Karsten Karsten.Koepp at lambdanet.net
Wed Nov 7 17:55:44 CET 2001
Hi Gert, > -----Original Message----- > From: Gert Doering [mailto:gert at space.net] > Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 5:18 PM > To: Koepp, Karsten > Cc: 'Vladimir A. Jakovenko'; 'lir-wg at ripe.net' > Subject: Re: FW: more specific routes in today reality > > > Hi, > > On Wed, Nov 07, 2001 at 03:48:20PM +0100, Koepp, Karsten wrote: > > All I am saying is, regardless of whether we want this type > of multi-homing > > or not, networks originating from different AS should use > PI space. It does > > neither save a route nor address space to make pieces of a PA block > > multi-homed. It only binds the network to the provider > assigning the PAs. > > That's why I was up-set. > > Whether or not an announcement is PI or PA has no influence > on the number > of routes visible in the global table. What I said before. > Using a sub-block from PA space has two advantages: > > - more flexible in block size (what if the customer comes back later > and needs twice the space?) Means the customer has to renumber to a bigger network. Can be done. > - more robust concerning filtering / dampening (the ISPs PA > space will > most likely be still visible, even if the sub-network is filtered > somewhere) I admit this is an advantage. > - if the customer goes away, the network can be given back and the > route will disappear -> good for conservation *and* aggregation. I don't follow that this will decrease routes. > The only benefit of PI is "you can keep your network if you > change ISPs", > which is convenient for the end customer but very expensive > on the global > routing system. > > This is why people actually ask for "stop handing out PI at > all" (which > I am *not* advocating here, but think about it). > > - and due to this pros and cons, which most people agree > upon, the RIPE recommendations make sense. Gert, after all you are convincing. This means in turn, it would be conform to the rules to multi-home PA addresses and it just depends on the service providers co-operating to create the route objects. Is this really current practice? Where or when is this gonna be reflected in RIPE docs? Karsten Total number of questions concerning RIPE policies: 73128 > > Gert Doering > -- NetMaster > -- > Total number of prefixes smaller than registry allocations: 73128 > > SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster at Space.Net > Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 > 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299 >
[ lir-wg Archives ]