Subject: Re: [RAM] Incremental Deployment of LISP

From: Yakov Rekhter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 07:36:42 -0700

Rolan,

> On Mar 31, 2007, at 8:14 PM, Ross Callon wrote:
>>...But I have a default route, so I can always route the packet
>>-- until it gets to the default free core of the Internet. [If the
>>default route doesn't count as "a route", then I can never
>>route the packet (unless it starts in the default free core of
>>the Internet).]
>
> Multihomed endpoint networks don't typically take (or are offered)
> default.

Typically an ISP have three categories of customers: (1) those who
receive just default, (2) those who receive routes for all of the
ISP's customers, plus default (for customers attached to other
ISPs), and (3) full set of routes. Multihomed customers may fall
into any of the above three categories.

Are you saying that multihomed customers typically fall into 
the third category ? 

Yakov.

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 08:19:47 -0700

> Are you saying that multihomed customers typically fall into

In my experience, yes.  There are other variations, naturally, but it  
seems to be increasingly common.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]> // 408.527.6376 voice

         Words that come from a machine have no soul.

                       -- Duong Van Ngo

---

From: Olivier Bonaventure <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 17:32:26 +0200

Roland,
> seems to be increasingly common.

When multihomed customer request full BGP routing tables, this is often
because they expect that BGP information (i.e. AS-Path) will help them
in selecting the "best" path to reach each destination. Measurements
show that the AS-Path is not a good indication of the quality of a path
and more recent systems (e.g. Cisco OER or routescience and others) rely
on active or passive measurements to determine path quality and select
the best path to reach each destination. For those recent systems, a
full BGP routing table is not a requirement.

I don't expect that multihomed customers will continue to expect full
BGP routing tables.

Olivier

-- 
CSE Dept. UCL, Belgium - http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/~obo

---

From: Roland Dobbins <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 08:37:43 -0700

On Apr 2, 2007, at 8:32 AM, Olivier Bonaventure wrote:

> Measurements

I understand what you're saying, but disagree with the prevalence of  
various optimization schemes for outbound traffic.  Some endpoint  
networks are certainly interested in those things, and awareness of  
them (quite separate from a discussion of their efficacy and/or  
desirability) is growing, but I believe this is far from the default  
(pardon the pun, heh) expectation, and will remain so for quite some  
time.

[All of this is really off-topic, anyways, as Ross pointed out that  
he was talking about ingress into multihomed endpoint networks, not  
egress from them.]

                       -- Duong Van Ngo