Search RPD Archives
Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by:

[rpd] New proposal - "Out-Of-Region Use of AFRINIC Internet Number Resources" (AFPUB-2014-GEN-002-DRAFT-01)

Mark Tinka mark.tinka at
Sun Jul 20 16:07:41 UTC 2014

On Sunday, July 20, 2014 01:49:42 AM Kofi ansa akufo wrote:

> > Mark most small to medium ISPs in our region have only
> > one upstream
> provider. As you know, in most cases of such peering the
> sub ISPs just receive a default route and not the global
> table.

Which is not a bad thing. In fact, when I teach BGP Routing 
workshops together with Philip Smith and others, we always 
say that if you are single-homed, don't waste too much time 
and effort on BGP if you have bigger fish to fry.

And even when you're multi-homed, you can survive quite 
nicely with partial routing.

> What I have seen is upstream ISPs and international
> carriers charging fees when the sub ISPs request
> receiving the global routing table.

Again, curious to know who these are. I haven't yet been in 
a position to meet any such providers, but it wouldn't 
surprise me that they exist.

> There have also been
> numerous occasions where such fees are charged given
> reasons like "we also have to contact our upstreams to
> allow your prefixes".

Well, that is a given. If your service provider does not 
organize their filters and co-ordinate that with their peers 
or upstreams, your chances of full Internet access are 

Service providers are welcome to charge for whatever they 
want. Heck, they can charge for the typing they have to do 
when pinging your router to troubleshoot a connectivity 
issue during turn-up. I encourage my competitors to do this 

> Others also simply dont have well designed core networks
> to tunnel huge global BGP table to their clients.
> Anyways these days many ISPs have routing gears which
> could handle enough traffic than where fast FIB becomes
> a problem as you pointed out. I do agree with you tough
> that having routing gears with distributed FIBs
> implemented on ASICs (which are expensive to own) for
> speed might be a better reason to charge the clients -
> BUT in many cases as you stated it is not warranted.

The problem is if one service providers charges you "extra" 
for enhancing their hardware while another one doesn't, what 
do you think is going to happen? 

That's a rhetorical question :-)...

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the RPD mailing list