1 / 11

Customer multihoming

Multihoming. More and more customers feel they want / need two providers Critical dataeCommerceMost often a very similar stability could be achieved with two lines to the same providerHow do build this?. Large enterprises. Often have their own RIPE LIR registrationOr they have large historic as

ouida
Télécharger la présentation

Customer multihoming

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Customer multihoming

    2. Multihoming More and more customers feel they want / need two providers Critical data eCommerce Most often a very similar stability could be achieved with two lines to the same provider How do build this?

    3. Large enterprises Often have their own RIPE LIR registration Or they have large historic assignments Easy case Addresses are PI Once second provider is identified the customer can apply for its own AS-number Drawback is that the number of AS-numbers in the global routing table grows

    4. AS number growth

    5. ...but it gets worse Small and medium sized enterprises want it too Do not have PI address space and only need a small amount of space So they will either get a PA address block that they announce through another provider or if they are lucky they get a small PI block.

    6. So why is this bad? We will pollute the global routing table with more routes we risk having routes that are smaller than the smallest block allocation See RIPE-222

    7. So why is this bad? People filter on these boundaries and it leads to de-aggregation ..and all this is BAD!!! See Ptomain WG See various reports Tony Bates CIDR report http://www.employees.org/~tbates/cidr-report.html James Aldridge http://www.mcvax.org/~jhma/routing/ Geoff Huston http://bgp.potaroo.net Philip Smith http://www.apnic.net/stats/bgp/

    8. and its already pretty bad

    9. .but the Nordics are doing pretty OK!

    10. So what are the options? Continue as today Break up the allocations and buy more router memory Bad option. We need to come up with something better The real solution is of course that the operators get stable networks so the problem goes away Then the customer can get multiple links to the same operator IPv6? Not really

    11. What is the standard way of doing things today? Comments from the audience? Problem get even worse if we start looking beyond the routing table If I announce a small allocation from another provider, who will get contacted when there is a problem?

More Related