Re: routing table size

["Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve () opaltelecom co uk>]

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