Folks, Allow me to express a bit of a different view - this time from enterprise perspective.
Actually announcing more specifics of the block one owns has real service advantages. So in itself it is actually a good thing ! What is bad for Internet is propagating those more specific routes beyond the point that they make any difference any longer. There was proposal to aggregate those at dynamic points where sending them no longer brings any service/routing advantages, but apparently at that time no one cared much: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-marques-idr-aggregate-00.txt - - - See assume I own /19 for a global network. I can't possibly announce that block via all of my 20 ISP peerings globally as top requirement is not to keep the Internet BGP table tiny, but rather to offer best service to customers. Further more imagine I offer various services based on geo location. For customers in Japan I want them to go to Japan DMZ and not float to any other location just because his ISP is one AS hop away from NY and two AS hops away from Osaka or Tokyo ISPs I peer with. So if I would attract such service to US I would need to carry it back to Tokyo over global WAN - disaster. See even /24 is a very coarse limit one has to deal with. I may have few gateways for a given service per site not 255. And each service has completely different service requirements from the network characteristic. If I have 8 ISPs there It is very clear (at least to some) that basic BGP best path routing is suboptimal. For years folks have been using SLA based routing to steer packets over non necessarily BGP best path between Internet endpoints. The more fine are the announcements the better egress path selection can be achieved. So the Internet is no longer used to reach A & B. It is used to reach A & B in most optimal way for a given application. Let's therefore keep those points in mind while blindly bashing "deaggregation" and calling names those who do it :). I bet no one is doing that just for fun. Enterprises are doing it to provide the best level of service. ISPs do it to serve the needs of their customers. It is feasible to enhance BGP to aggregate when it no longer makes sense to carry more specific prefixes - let's rethink this. Thx, R. On Sun, Nov 3, 2019 at 8:41 PM Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org> wrote: > Gert Doering wrote on 03/11/2019 19:15: > > On Sun, Nov 03, 2019 at 03:10:29PM +0000, Martijn Schmidt wrote: > >>> Maybe "BGP Deaggregation Slopping" as a working title? > >> Or "Scenic BGP Deaggregation", or "BGP Globetrotting", or "BGP > >> Castaways". If anything a connotation with the sea and/or submarine > >> cables would be appropriate, I think! > > > > "BGP vandalism" > > "Noxious Routing"? > > Nick > > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > GROW@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list GROW@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
