On 25 Oct 2014, at 15:09, Ray Hunter <v6...@globis.net> wrote: > This is natural behaviour, unless there's a less blunt instrument applied to > managing BGP routing table size than simply restricting maximum prefix length > per peer.
Please have a look at my draft. I think that establishing an aggregate of last resort coupled with BGP communities that allow for selectively filtering deaggregates covered by an aggregate in the places where they aren't desired helps both big organizations and network operators. If a big organization hires two tier-1 ISPs, for instance, and then makes sure that the ISPs that its organizational subunits select for their connectivity interconnect with the ISPs announcing the AoLR (as peers or as customers), only networks that get paid need to carry the deaggregates. Which is good for the ISPs that get paid (obviously), for the ones that don't get paid (no deaggregates) and for the organization (they know who to blame for connectivity issues). _______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
