Bill, Your comments regarding the hierarchical routing may be valid, I believe, -- especially taking into consideration that the whole subject of this thread is just one of the drivers inevitably flattening the Internet topology :) But look what's going on in MANET, for example (LANMAR being particularly amazing). This at least suggests that some scenarios may exist where you have neither strictly hierarchical routing nor '2-32nd entries in the "DFZ"'. -- dima.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog@merit.edu [mailto:owner-nanog@merit.edu]On Behalf Of bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2001 6:22 PM To: David R. Conrad Cc: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Re: multi-homing fixes
The tragedy of the commons exist because there is a limited resource, incentive to do the wrong thing, and disincentives to do the right thing. Until there are disincentives to do the wrong thing, e.g., filter routes, apply a charge to routes in the DFZ to encourage aggregation, etc., incentives to do the right thing, and/or the limitations in the DFZ are removed, you _will_ get a tragedy of the commons.
Rgds, -drc Speaking only for myself
The limited resource is the fixed upper bound on numbers. There are concerns w/ the current technological limitations on mgmt of the route table and the weaknesses in the current routing assumptions. As friend Bush has indicated, the IRTF and in the IETF, much thought is being given to how to migrate from BGP to something new. Perhaps heirarchical routing itself is flawed and we need something new. This problem is not new.
As a data point, I would ask that those whom are allowed to participate in the design discussions and are willing to be active in them, to take this request into those discussions. I would like to see the ability to have the routing system support 2-32nd entries in the "DFZ" (whatever that is... :)
--bill