From: Daniel Karrenberg (no email)
Date: Tue Nov 01 2005 - 12:00:07 EST
On 01.11 05:41, Randy Bush wrote:
> mornin' daniel:
ev'nin randy:
Of course the NCC takes resposibility for the K anycast deployment
including the way we announce BGP routes to K. We also clearly describe
and announce what we do. We cannot take responsibility for what others
do with that routing information; we cannot because we have no control
over and little way of knowing what they do. We are doing the best we
can; hence this conversation.
We are considering to add a covering prefix announced from global nodes
relatively quickly. This should solve the particular problem and we
cannot (yet) see any problems it would create. But this is more complex
than the current state and thus brings us further away from salvation ;-).
If there are reasons not to do this, please let us know.
We are also considering seriously to treat "local" nodes and global
nodes the same routing wise wherever possible. This will be done
one-by-one wiht the proper announcements and concurrent measurements.
My poersonal hope is that we can do this for all K nodes and thus remove
all BGP cleverness that originates from us. This does not mean that all
cleverness concerning K's routes would be removed though.
Daniel
|
|
|