Home page logo

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?
From: Owen DeLong <owen () delong com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:38:57 -0700

On Aug 6, 2012, at 16:15 , William Herrin <bill () herrin us> wrote:

On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
That's simply not true at all...

Let's look at what it takes to configure BGP as I suggested...

1. The ASN number of the two providers
2. The ASN to be used for the local side
3. The IP Address to use on the local end of each connection
4. The IP Address to peer with on each connection
5. The prefix(es) to be advertised.

Add to that:

6. Primary A, Primary B, Balanced (routing priority via AS path prepends)

Not absolutely required and certainly going beyond what is required to provide slightly better than the functionality 
provided with the dual-NAT scenario.

7. Optional password for each session (some ISPs require one)

Fair enough, but pretty trivial.

Or take another tack: have the SOHO router accept a URL for each BGP
connection and have the provider build the config. Then all you enter
is your provider-assigned interface address, a DNS server address and
a URL.

Well, I was going for zeroconf, but yes, that was basically allowed for in what I described.

Your point is well taken. A leaf node BGP configuration could be
simplified to the point where it fits on a SOHO router config page and
does not require an expert to configure.

Yep... And it could even be made 100% automated zeroconf with a little more effort.

It could even use provider-assigned private-ASNs and a shared PA prefix with a little additional ingenuity.


  By Date           By Thread  

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