Re: [v6ops] [GROW] Deaggregation by large organizations

[Christopher Morrow <[e-mail]>]

On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Gert Doering <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 10:11:41AM -0400, Christopher Morrow wrote:
>> So, some folk thought: "Hey, not announcing my aggregate and not
>> providing connectivity between the aggregate announcement and the
>> little islands I created is a grand plan!" and were surprised when
>> things went badly...
>>
>> Do you want a document that says:
>>   "Sure, announce your aggregate as a bunch of de-aggs, and be sure
>> there's a fall back ASIDE FROM ::/0 which has reachability to your
>> islands, if you want to be sure to not run afoul of random isp route
>> filtering."
>
> A strong message to that extent would be good :-) - coupled with
> some recommendations how the conflicting goals ("I want all ISPs in
> my neighbourhood to use optimal routing" vs. "someone in Asia might
> not be interested in all in 5k routes for german municipality")
> could be solved.
>

ok, perhaps iljitsch can drop some text into a document so we can get
a good read going and decide whether or not GROW wants to spend cycles
on it?

The problem exists in v4 and v6 and likely will persist in whatever
comes next. It's directly related to routing operations work on the
global intertubes, so it SEEMS like GROW is the 'right place' to
discuss this... we can't go anywhere without text and a draft though.

> I get that question fairly often from "largish networks", and so far,
> I always have to answer "there is no routing police, so it's hard to
> say what is allowed on the Internet and what not" - which is a humorous
> way to say "there is no consensus here what consists 'good' and
> 'responsible'"...

I sort of don't want there to be 'routing police' though :( In a way
this whole debate sounds like something a 'cisco training class' (or
other example) would have covered, or should cover. I suppose it's
fairly experiential at this point though.