Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

RE: PI space and colocation
From: "Chris Ranch" <CRanch () Affinity com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:39:12 -0500

On Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:10 PM, Pat wrote:
On Jan 18, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:

Is it a reasonable alternative to establish a BGP connection with 
the provider over ethernet?

It is technical feasible, but I don't think 'reasonable'.  
Stub ASes 
are pollution on the 'Net.

We've done this as well.  Whats wrong with letting the customer use 
their ASN and BGP peering with them in your data center?  
They might 
even get a connection to someone else there and multihome again.  
Either way, the routes are getting into the global table...does the 
end of the aspath matter that much?

It adds zero useful data to the global table, but increases 
RAM, CPU, etc. on every router looking at the global table.

Given how vociferously people argue against items in the 
table which _do_ add useful data, superfluous info should be 
avoided whenever possible.  IMHO, of course.

In the past under these circumstances, if the customer still insists on
BGP after I strongly recommeded just a static DFG, I'd peer with the
customer with a private AS (64512-65535).  Then they usually ask me to
annouce a DFG to them.  Sometimes they'd want a full table.  Sigh.  

At least they'd have the future flexibility of adding another provider
without much change.  I've personally done that too.


  By Date           By Thread  

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