Hi The same problem (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4984) has been discussed in the Routing Research Group for a couple years. Their discussion has been summarized in: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6115 AFAIR there is a section talking about aggregating prefixes. Luigi On Sep 19, 2011, at 14:19 , Dan Luedtke wrote:
2011/9/19 Jasper Jans <Jasper.Jans@espritxb.nl>:
It sounds suspiciously like ITU for me (ie, bad). It imposes previously non-existent architectural limits and constraints on Internet routing That's exactly what I thought.
Why, for example, didn't you suggest nation state borders? If, and only if, anyone really would suggest practically borders, then please no nation state borders. Peering-Regions could be an idea, e.g. AMSIX-region, DECIX-region and at all places where LIRs use to peer.
How do LIRs handle the issue at the moment? I guess I would just add a default route to my routing table for one (or more) transit providers. Or buy a better(tm) router if I could afford it. Sorry for being barefaced, but although I appreciate the idea, I just don't think it is doable yet.
One cannot aggegrate routes when it is not reflected on the corresponding infrastructure, can one?
regards, danrl
-- danrl / Dan Luedtke http://www.danrl.de