North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
Once upon a time, Edward B. DREGER <firstname.lastname@example.org> said: > No, it is not unworkable. Think through it a bit more. Although the > problem is theoretically O(N^2), in practice it is closer to O(N). Note > that _routing itself_ is theoretically an O(N^2) problem. Do we say > that it is "unworkable obviously"? No. There's a difference: computers (routers) handle the O(N^2) routing problem, while people would have to handle the O(N^2) cooperative AS problem. > Yes, one ASN is required per cooperating pair. Just how many pairs do > you think there are? Now compare with the number of leaves that [would > [like to]] dual-home. We are a relatively small ISP with just a handful of multihoming customers. However, no two of them have the same other provider. What is gained by us setting up relationships with a bunch of other providers and getting special ASes assigned? What if one of those customers gets a connection to a third upstream, or if they change their upstream? Right now, it doesn't affect us (we don't have to do anything), but in your setup, it would require us to get yet another AS. Only one of our multihoming customers has a connection to someone we already have a connection with, so there's no path between our network and the rest. -- Chris Adams <email@example.com> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.