On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, David Schwartz wrote:

On Sat, 27 Jul 2002 23:04:02 +0100 (BST), Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:

...

I've a feeling that the fact that everyone shares at least the view that a /24 is minimum helps to contain the routing table. (even if there are still thousands of /24 announcements)

If a significant number of providers starting accepting any prefix then the others would need to follow (else they'd get no transit traffic as it will always prefer the most specific). This really would lead to route explosion!

I guess the counter argument is that you'd still get the same number of announcements at longer prefixes as there are only lots of /24s as its the current shortest (if you catch my drift here). But I doubt it is quite that straight forward and there would be a growth in announcements..

Steve

My point is simply that only those who felt the /32s were worth carrying would carry them. And those who chose to announce them would have to factor the effects of selective carrying into their decisions. But nobody would be imposing any unwanted costs on anyone else.

Yes, you said that before and my above comments still apply!

That's the difference. Nothing you can possibly do with a customer can impose unwanted costs on you or the customer. If you don't want the costs, don't do it. If the customer won't pay you the cost of doing it, don't do it. it's only in the relationship between ISPs and non-customers that there's a pollution and inequitable cost distribution issue.

But it costs me nothing to accept my customers announcements.... ?

Practicing what you preach does not require treating fundamentally different situations as the same.

How is it different? The cash (customer) bit isnt relevant.. its how many providers allow it which is. Steve

DS