On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 09:10:43AM +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
First off: there has been some discussion whether 200K routes is a problem or not. If the numbers stayed at that level (how can we ensure that?), that wouldn't be a huge problem. Bigger one is
Well, as most business models are based on the concept of everlasting growth, I assume most ISPs should not try to ensure stagnation there. Though they could (just stop accepting new customers, but I believe you will get into trouble with some of the more commercial oriented departments then).
dynamicity. Huston's study indicated that there are folks whose BGP announcements flap (due to TE) intentionally 1000's of times a day. Multiply that by the number of sites (and add sBGP or friends to the stew) and you may start thinking that your DFZ router might have better things to do than process that cruft.
Well using the max value as the average is a little unusual for a business calculation, but okay, you are expecting the worst case. Good for you, but most customers have no interest in paying for an ISP, that is always ready for the worst case. There is a market segment, though, so thats fine.
I do not agree with "So announcing these routes into BGP is the responsibility of an ISP." -- the _sites_ decide how they want to advertise; the biggest decision of the ISP is whether it does BGP flap damping for these or not.
ACK.
Virtually all multihomers use their own AS number -- agree? If you agree, I guess what you're saying is that in most cases the ISPs set up the AS numbers and the multihoming at customer's equipment, customer's premises or colo, customer's AS number, etc.?
NACK. In many cases they do it themselves or have externals doing it. Those managing the equipment are mostly not the same delivering the lines, though sometimes they are. Thats at least the perspective I got from customers we have set up interconnections with. Thats mainly large enterprise market, small customers usually do not get connectivity to our network (as they do not need it). Nils