[AusNOG] Small Pipe BNE/Agile issue

[Adrian Chadd]

On Sat, Jun 14, 2008, Matthew Moyle-Croft wrote:

> 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.

How is it an issue with "MPLAs" ? The fact that its allowed is the
issue.

I'm sure you guys "get" bilateral peering. Deaggregation and subsequent
pollution into the IX isn't a function of the IX type, its a function of
a lack of enforced rules and potentially not-quite-cluey networks.

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. :)

> Maybe MLPA vs Bilateral debate is a good idea for the peering session at 
> AUSNOG2?  

Now I'm so coming to AUSNOG02. I'll bring popcorn. :)



Adrian