North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
RE: /24s run amuck again
At 6/10/01 02:05 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
Taken together, the pair of statements above is a pretty good illustration of the issues at play in the inter-provider space today. Wanting to optimize traffic loads over multiple connections is not unreasonable as an objective, but having the entire world see your resultant advertisements is not the best of outcomes.>> but if you are not paying me, what reasons are there for me to spend my >> resources (route bloat) so you can engineer your traffic? > none. well, we agree so far :-) > Now tell me how to promulgate my TE-triggering routing advertisements > precisely to the edge of my payment boundary (i.e. my upstreams, and > their upstreams, and so on recursively along the upstream relationships) > and no further, using today's BGP? but why should i pay the costs because the tool was not designed to do what you want done?
i will happily work on tool design with you . but, in the meantime, why should i have to pay a penalty for your odd business choices?
If you are on my upstream chain, then I am accompanying my routing requirements with money. Whatever penalty you may incur I pay for with my upstream payment. Where your statement holds is once you are not seeing money from me (i.e. you are not an upstream paid directly or indirectly by me), in which case what would help us all is a recognised [*] community attribute which says "advertise this prefix together with this attribute only to your upstreams"
[*] 'well if you don't recognise it then I am less interested in having you as my upstream than if you do.
( casual readers should note that 'you' and 'i' are abstract terms, and that geoff usually claims to be more of a capitalist than i :-)