Re: Filters and reality
At 08:32 AM 8/27/97 +0900, David R. Conrad wrote:
[Apologies for an (almost technical) post from outside NA to NANOG]
Hi,
Should we continue to poke holes in our filters to let Sprint's customer's customer routes through, or should we keep trying to explain to the Sprint NOC why their customer's customers could use shorter prefix length announcements?
I suppose it depends on what slope you want the graph at http://www.iepg.org/ops/bgptable.html to have. Regardless of whether the filters are a "good idea" or not, they do tend to limit routing table growth and its implications, if for no other reason than smaller sites are "encouraged" to go to their providers for address space due to fear of being filtered.
No argument there, but what about more consistency in filtering which *might* lead to more predictability in routing behavior? Given, diversity in address assignment (as well as policy) serves as a cause the variation in filtering policy. - donner
Regards, -drc
Hi,
No argument there, but what about more consistency in filtering which *might* lead to more predictability in routing behavior?
I think the theory was (and the Neo-European Sean D. can correct me if I'm wrong) that the lack of outbound filters was to encourage other ISPs to implement the filters. To be honest, the filtering solution has always struck me as the moral equivalent to using a sledgehammer to remove unslightly warts -- arguably effective, but somewhat unaesthetic. It seems to me it would be so much more ... elegant if folk would settle for routes and/or flap (given they are the critical resources). Implementation is left as an excercise for the reader. Regards, -drc
participants (2)
-
David R. Conrad -
Paul G. Donner