RE: Multihoming - Resilience or Independence

["Lu, Ping" <]

> 
> > The point is we will aggregate other ISP's prefixes if they 
> are CIDR able.
> > Most of the case
> > are there are holes in the range so CIDR is out-of-question.
> > 
> > While the other camp insist to filter out any routes more 
> specific than /20.
> > They are doing nothing to re-allocate their PA assigned to 
> multi-homed
> > customers so CW can CIDR them into /20.
> > 
> > The funny thing is the solution are controlled by the other 
> camp but they
> > are all talk but
> > no action. (Or trying to tell you multi-homed is a bad idea 
> because they
> > can't deal with the
> > routing table ).
> 
> I am not sure I am following you here. Are you saying that we should
> re-adress customers so that we get larger blocks of PA space 
> to give to
> mulithomed customers? 
> 
> I think that re-addressing is pretty hard to do in any larger scale,
> although that would certanly help some other issues. 
> 

That's why filtering /20 only without re-aligning the holes in the block
won't
work. In the end /20 make the routing table looks pretty but they are
black-holing
lots of traffic.

As we all agree that re-assign address is NOT practical at all thus just
filtering
/20 block is not a good solution.


> another good start would be to start reclaiming space that 
> has been handed
> out from various ISPs old B-space and later taken with the customer. I
> know a few operators that have done that (including us to 
> some extent),
> and it's a rather demanding task but will help the operators 
> and reudce
> the routing table as well. 
> 
> - kurtis -
>

I am with you here. Starting from the beginning is much better than asking
them to change later.

Ping Lu
Cable & Wireless USA
Network Tools and Analysis Group
W: +1-703-292-2359
E: plu@localhost