RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter

["Lincoln Dale" <ltd () interlink com au>]

> I'm not crazy about that, but certainly it'd work, and there would still
> be some savings.  Due to the above mentioned stupidity, you'd still have
> no routes for some parts of the internet.

what i think it boils down to is that many folks seem to run default-free
because they can, because its cool, because its what tier-1 folks do, because
(insert cool/uber reason why here), but not necessarily because they HAVE TO.

even if you're a content-provider in North America and want to ensure an
"optimal path" of traffic, generally speaking, you could accept prefixes
(as-is) from ARIN allocations but for (say) APNIC and RIPE do either some
degree of filtering or just push it via a default.

having a full feed may be cool, but i'm not sure what cost folks are willing to
pay for that 'cool' factor.
filtering and/or default-to-one-place may be so 90s but that doesn't mean its a
bad thing.


cheers,

lincoln.