Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
From: Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:44:27 -0500



On 15-Feb-2006, at 19:33, Edward B. DREGER wrote:

Want to dual-home to SBC and Cox?  Great.  You get IP space from

        1.0.0/18

which is advertised via AS64511. Lots of leaf dual-homers do the same, yet there is ONE route in the global table for the lot of you. SBC and Cox interconnect and swap packets when someone's local loop goes *poof*.
Flaps within 1.0.0/18 never hit the outside world.

Personally, if I was going to multi-home, I would far prefer that my various transit providers don't cooperate at all, and have sets of peers and/or upstream transit providers that are as different as possible from each others'. The last thing I need are operational procedures which are shared between them.

If all you want is last-mile redundancy, surely you can just attach twice to the same ISP and avoid all the routing complications completely?

I get the feeling that there's a lot of solutions-designing going on in this thread without the benefit of prior problem-stating.


Joe


  By Date           By Thread  

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