Where does it no longer make sense to deaggregate? Isn't that a bunch related to what problem the initial announcement is trying to solve?
On Sun, Nov 3, 2019, 15:29 Robert Raszuk <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >> > _______________________________________________ > GROW mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow >
_______________________________________________ GROW mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/grow
