Hi Brian,
Well your idea of not sending more specifics downstream would be really a
cool one if all Tier 1s would fully mesh with each other and exchange those
more specifics. Then indeed yes there would be no reason to send those
downstream.
But I am afraid this is not yet the reality we face.
On Mon, Nov 4, 2019 at 6:43 AM Christopher Morrow <
christopher.mor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
>
I just realized this question might not have had an answer,
Hi!
Russ evolved the draft with a couple of different names and co-authors.
The last version was this:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-white-grow-overlapping-routes/
…which we presented at grow a couple of years ago.
Alvaro.
On November 20, 2019 at 2:36:23 AM, Jakob Heitz (jheitz)
, November 4, 2019 6:56 PM
To: grow@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [GROW] BGP deaggregation
Hello Robert,
I really like the way you describe the situation. And this one is a very
important phrase:
"What is bad for Internet is propagating those more specific routes beyond the
point that they mak
On 11/3/19 9:28 PM, Robert Raszuk wrote:
> 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
Hello Robert,
I really like the way you describe the situation. And this one is a
very important phrase:
"What is bad for Internet is propagating those more specific routes
beyond the point that they make any difference any longer. "
I recognize that your draft if more complicated than what
> I’m sure someone else will take up the slots almost immediately.
Hehe and what stops that someone to inject those more specifics today
before you take back yours :) ? Last time I looked at BGP UPDATE I did not
notice any TDM like slots there :)
If BGP announcements would be having free quota
> On Nov 3, 2019, at 5:42 PM, Christopher Morrow
> wrote:
>
> 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?
I’m looking to get rid of some of our more specifics in 2020 which should help
reduce
Hi Christopher,
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?
>
My answer is - If routing path to destination by more specific would be
identical to the path covered by less specific prefix.
Based on
Thank you Robert for sharing your perspective.
I didn’t take the intention of the mail thread to be that deaggregation is
bad, just that when done incorrectly, it results in suboptimal results.
We need to document the cases where the business intentions and the reality
of what happens in the
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 wrote:
> Folks,
>
> Allow me to express a bit of a different view - this time from enterprise
> perspective.
>
>
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
