Subject: Re: Routed, anyone?
To: None <current-users@NetBSD.ORG, mouse@Collatz.McRCIM.McGill.EDU>
From: Sean Doran <email@example.com>
Date: 03/10/1996 19:28:42
| Yes, I think running RIP over a dialup link is usually a bad idea. But
| I'm not prepared to excuse routed's being rude to your route just
| because the particular reason you want to advertise it seems like a bad
| idea to me. (No, I don't know how to make routed do what you want.)
Oh, I dunno; there are times when "Well, Don't Do That Then"
is a reasonable response, and spending time fixing a
possible bug specifically to assist someone who has run into
a "Well Don't Do That Then" chorus strikes me as a likely
misdirection of effort.
In this case, a number of the "attackers" in question are in
the trenches making parts of the Internet work and know full
well that the key scaling problem in the Internet is
Any approach to doing dialups over multiple locations
which causes routing announcements to be propagated
throughout much of the Internet is not a good one.
There are several obvious counter-possibilities:
-- aggregate at the edges
-- hold up routes at the edges where one cannot
do aggregation (Neil suggested this)
-- build a sub-IP connection between the endpoint and
a device which holds a permanent
longest-match route towards the endpoint
(this can even be done unidirectionally)
-- Network Address Translation
-- living with having different addresses when
you dial up different places
Finally, while doing a dynamic route-announcement that has
Internet-wide scope for dialup end users is currently
antisocial, at some point a charging mechanism will be in
place which will make it simply extremely expensive.
Sean Doran <firstname.lastname@example.org> / <email@example.com>