Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: Non-ISP companies multi-homing?
From: Eric Germann <ekgermann () cctec com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 1997 13:54:49 -0400

At 11:22 AM 7/24/97 -0400, root () gannett com wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Howard C. Berkowitz wrote:

Interesting approach.  In general, the ISPs I know would be reluctant to
run iBGP with a customer, unless they had total control of all BGP
speakers.  If I understand you correctly, the enterprise would have to tag
its advertisements to the second ISP with the ASN of the first, since the
enterprise doesn't have its own.  Again, I think most ISPs would be
reluctant to give up this amount of control.

I think most of the companies running redundant links now have their own 
address space and ASN.  We got our primary address blocks back when a 
company could still do that.  I think there's going to have to be some 
way to address that with semi-portable AS' in the near future though, as 
more criticality transitions to the Net.  


So how do you folks punch through the infamous /19 filters?  I've got a
couple of clients who would like to multihome, but can't get PI space cause
they can't justify 8192 addresses.  Not having "fully routable" PI space
negates the whole purpose of multihoming from their perspective.  Does
Gannett or Pointcast have >= 8K hosts exposed on their DMZ networks?

I'm beginning to think there is a market for a device which has 1 Ethernet
port and responds to any RANGE of addresses, so you can scam Internic into
thinking you have 100% utilization of your address space, right off the bat...

Eric



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault