I thought the major point in the filter arguments is the trade offs between stability, route convergence times, table size, and the growing customer desire to have reliability based on upstream diversity. We can't have unlimited route tables growth. Large route tables increase instability and convergence time. We can yap all day about inconsistent policies but nothing in this industry is fixed except the limits forced on us by physics. The technology, and economics tend to shift around. Find a way to provide reliable multi homing without massive route table growth and you fix many things. I do not run Vario ... I will not fault them for taking a stance? A more NANOG centric discussion may be to understand how many providers would have problems given larger route tables. We all don't have routers that can easily chew through a 100,000+ line BGP table. How much can we give to individual entities without endangering the common good?
At 09:01 AM 9/28/2001 -0700, Majdi S. Abbas wrote:
Sure, they filter, but they invite THEIR peers to filter them, as well. I don't see any hypocracy in that.
I am sorry you do not. How about we agree to disagree?
See old thread ... -- Joseph T. Klein +1 414 915 7489 Senior Network Engineer jtk@titania.net Adelphia Business Solutions joseph.klein@adelphiacom.com "... the true value of the Internet is its connectedness ..." -- John W. Stewart III