Why Vadim likes statics

To move along an other tangent... What is the general wisdom on putting
pull-ups on route annoucements to deter route flap? Vadim kindly gave me
a static Null 250 hack to keep announcement up even if the source of the
route drops it. Hence, you won't get the !H until you get to our border.
Los pobre packitos will travel all the way and then get whacked. Seems
to subvert one interpretation one could read into the intent of BGP.


This sounds a lot like the slippery slope of static routing being the most
stable, so we should encourage its use Internet wide. I -know- Karl D.
(and others that depend on dynamic routing for alternate provider fallback)
will kick at this.

The general argument is that since the current hardware technology has problems
with "flap", causing meltdown, that we should use statics to reduce the visablity
of "flap" across the net.

It is my contention that any use of dynamic routing will get you "flap".. by
definition. So we end up with a few possible outcomes (there are more...)

  - Static routing is enforced on the perimeter of ISPs
    (BGP dies as it is no longer useful)
  - Strict limits on "address" portability are imposed.
    (no-hole, provider based addressing)
  - Internal nets become so complex that dynamic IGPs are squashed
    and statics take over there as well.

In the end, the Internet looks just like the telco mesh.