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'.
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?
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.
Re: PI space and colocation Pete Templin (Jan 19)
Re: PI space and colocation Bill Woodcock (Jan 18)
RE: PI space and colocation Chris Ranch (Jan 18)