<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Adrian Chadd wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:20080614033949.GB11880@skywalker.creative.net.au"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Sat, Jun 14, 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">PIPE allow people to advertise longer than /24s. If we don't accept
and pass them on then we end up with people complaining that some
traffic takes a transit path etc to them. Basically it's that a lot of
people use longer-prefixes as a traffic engineering solution (more
specific wins) rather than consistent prefix advertisement. Hence some
providers into PIPE exchanges in Oz advertise a gazillion /24s or longer
direct from IGP. This is one of the issues with MLPAs.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
How is it an issue with "MPLAs" ? The fact that its allowed is the
issue.
</pre>
</blockquote>
You're right it's not specific to MPLAs - I was commenting on the
longer than /24 issue though. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20080614033949.GB11880@skywalker.creative.net.au"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Heck, there's some people deaggregating down to /23's from a much larger
contiguous block. Its not just longer than /24's, its that people chose
"deaggregate as TE" as a solution, and it appears over transit as well
as IXes. You just don't (yet) see it over transit, as noone's offered
large enough amounts of cash to carry very small prefixes. :)
</pre>
</blockquote>
And because most bilaterals have has a condition not longer than /24s,
so you could advertise to a transit provider, but they couldn't send it
further! Indeed a lot of transit providers will allow you to
advertise longer than /24 but won't pass it on.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:20080614033949.GB11880@skywalker.creative.net.au"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Maybe MLPA vs Bilateral debate is a good idea for the peering session at
AUSNOG2?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
Now I'm so coming to AUSNOG02. I'll bring popcorn. :)
</pre>
</blockquote>
I'll bring some stones and a glass house. <br>
<br>
I think MLPAs have served us well in Australia, but I do think AUSNOG2
might be a good place to discuss whether we need to move to bilaterals
or a mixed model (ie MLPA is optional) to encourage larger
international companies to join peering points here who won't currently
as MLPAs are mandatory (pretty much). Especially in the context of
international transmission prices to Australia dropping and the
likelyhood of various global Tier2s/Tier2+s moving in here.<br>
<br>
MMC<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>