nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP Failover Question
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2011 14:19:20 -0800
On 2/21/2011 13:44, Max Pierson wrote:
Save yourself the headache and find a new provider that knows how tohandle BGP I've had this happen with providers that do know how to handle BGP. Just because you peer with 3356, 701, etc, doesn't mean operators can't make a mistake. I've even seen this happen due to some wierd BGP behavior caused by some cool new "features". IMHO, better to plan for it and deploy it as a policy (by whatever means).
On a predictable schedule? That's where I drew the line: they were "fixing" something that was not "normal" to them every two months that resulted in the problem the OP described. Yes, mistakes happen, but identical repeating mistakes don't count in my book. I would expect my providers to document changes and whoever is making changes to consult it when they see a deviation from common config. ~Seth
Current thread:
- BGP Failover Question Chris Wallace (Feb 21)
- RE: BGP Failover Question Brian Johnson (Feb 21)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Max Pierson (Feb 21)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Seth Mattinen (Feb 21)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Max Pierson (Feb 21)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Seth Mattinen (Feb 21)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Max Pierson (Feb 21)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Charles Gucker (Feb 21)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Chris Wallace (Feb 22)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Hammer (Feb 22)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Bret Clark (Feb 22)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Hammer (Feb 22)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Owen DeLong (Feb 22)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Hammer (Feb 22)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Hammer (Feb 22)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Owen DeLong (Feb 22)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Hammer (Feb 22)
- Re: BGP Failover Question Chris Wallace (Feb 22)
