nanog mailing list archives
RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter
From: Jon Lewis <jlewis () lewis org>
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:23:01 -0400 (EDT)
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 michael.dillon () bt com wrote:
Has everyone forgotten the "Tier 1 depeerings" of several years ago? i.e. If you were pointing default at C&W, PSINet, Cogent, or Level3 when they each had or caused depeering issues, parts of the internet ceased to be reachable. In such cases, having full routes from multiple providers was the only way to be automatically protected from such games.Not so. Anyone who had sufficient transit was also protected from the games. Lots of so-called regionals and tier-2 networks were shielded from this monkey-business. And, of course, they shielded their customers as well. A tier-1 network operator who operates such a fragile network becomes a single point of failure. And not just because of peering as the AT&T frame relay collapse shows.
I think you've completely missed what I said. If you were pointing default at C&W (whether they were your only connection, or you were "multihomed" but couldn't handle full routes, so perhaps you had customer routes from each provider and default pointing at C&W) when they depeered PSI, single homed (or similarly configured non-full routes) customers of PSI ceased to be reachable. A long time customer of mine was hit by this (their business required communications with one or more single homed PSI customers, and C&W was their sole transit). It was the driving force behind their multihoming. Ever since, they've maintained 3 or more transit providers and full routes from each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Jon Lewis | I route Senior Network Engineer | therefore you are Atlantic Net | _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
Current thread:
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter, (continued)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Bill Woodcock (Sep 23)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter michael.dillon (Sep 23)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Bill Woodcock (Sep 23)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter michael.dillon (Sep 23)
- Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin Raymond L. Corbin (Sep 23)
- Re: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin Suresh Ramasubramanian (Sep 23)
- RE: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin Raymond L. Corbin (Sep 23)
- Re: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin Ken Simpson (Sep 24)
- RE: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin Jason J. W. Williams (Sep 24)
- Re: Yahoo! Mail/Sys Admin Al Iverson (Sep 24)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Jon Lewis (Sep 23)
- pointing default (was Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter) Randy Bush (Sep 23)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter John A. Kilpatrick (Sep 21)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter James Jun (Sep 22)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter micky coughes (Sep 22)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter James Jun (Sep 22)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter John A. Kilpatrick (Sep 25)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Lincoln Dale (Sep 21)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Jon Lewis (Sep 21)
- Re: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Matt Liotta (Sep 21)
- RE: Route table growth and hardware limits...talk to the filter Lincoln Dale (Sep 21)