nanog mailing list archives
Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer
From: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 22:58:32 +0200
On Monday, July 07, 2014 08:46:05 PM Jason Lixfeld wrote:
1. You already know that multihop is very ugly. If it's for a one-off, it's probably fine. But building a product around multi-hop wouldn't be my first choice.
We prefer Layer 2 bundling technologies like 802.1AX, POS bundles or ML-PPP. However, some customers just can't support this, but have multiple links to us and need load sharing. In this case, eBGP Mulit-Hop is a reasonable use-case. Mark.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Current thread:
- Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Anurag Bhatia (Jul 07)
- Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Jason Lixfeld (Jul 07)
- Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Mark Tinka (Jul 08)
- Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Mark Tinka (Jul 08)
- Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Mark Tinka (Jul 08)
- Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Jeff Tantsura (Jul 14)
- Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Nick Hilliard (Jul 17)
- Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Mark Tinka (Jul 27)
- Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Mark Tinka (Jul 17)
- Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Anurag Bhatia (Jul 19)
- Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Jeff Tantsura (Jul 14)
- Re: Best practice for BGP session/ full routes for customer Jason Lixfeld (Jul 07)
