From: Peter van Oene (pvo@usermail.com)
Date: Tue Nov 12 2002 - 06:10:34 GMT-3
On Mon, 2002-11-11 at 22:13, Eric R. wrote:
> That is one kind of problem that arises from having greater than a /21.
> Yeah, your directly connected ISP's will take your $$$ and advertise
> your /whatever, but that doesn't mean everyone will accept it
> downstream.
This situation promotes ISP allocation of space to enterprises vs
registry assignments which is entirely what the registries are in favour
of. When you make a stink about your need for PI space and are
sucessful, either now or in the past, you will end up with space that is
not guaranteed to be reachable from other nets. This again goes to
support the practice of multihoming to single, well connected providers
and using space out of large provider allocations which will have a much
better chance of being reachable on a wide scale.
However, this is a pretty OT thread especially in the lab list so I'll
leave it at that.
If I'm NOT an ISP but multi-homed do I want my router filled
> with upteen thousand /24's, No! An ISP is designed to absorb somewhat
> bgp route's flapping but my Enterprise links don't need to be filled
> with BGP route's flapping. Those links cost me big $$$. Don't think for
> one moment that having 50,000 ma and pa shops advertising /24's around
> the world there would not be considerable flapping. I mean doesn't
> advertising all these /24's defeat the purpose of aggregation, which is
> suppose to clam the internet and BGP route flapping.
>
> This would make a good nanog thread ;-)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Jin" <pauljin@yahoo.com>
> To: "MADMAN" <dave@interprise.com>; "Hamele Kassa" <hkassa@attrmc.net>
> Cc: "Brian T. Albert" <brian.albert@worldnet.att.net>;
> <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
> Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 5:04 PM
> Subject: Re: BGP & multihoming
>
>
> > I cannot remember who it was for sure, but I had a situation where I
> got for
> > a customer of ours, to advertise a customer owned /24 to ATT and they
> had no problems.
> >
> > Everything went fine, and a week or two later, I got a call from the
> customer saying
> > there is a particular web site that the executive members needed to
> get to but somehow they could not since the change over to ATT.
> >
> > What we found out was the fact that although ATT took in the /24
> prefix and readvertised it, there was an ISP few hops down that did not
> accept /24. and the
> > web server that the customer needed to get to was behind that ISP.
> >
> > But I cannot remember who it was, and this was back in early part of
> 2001.
> >
> > Has anyone had any similar experience?
> >
> > - Paul
> >
> > MADMAN <dave@interprise.com> wrote:I keep seeing people refer to
> this /19 as the smallest aggregate that
> > will be accepted by a provider though I have yet to meet this provider.
> > I have set up several customers with dual home full routes and they
> > announce a single /24 network or maybe a couple but very few have /19 or
> > better. The providers I have worked with that accepted the /24 include
> > Qwest, MCI, Sprint, Onvoy, and AT&T come to mind.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> > Hamele Kassa wrote:
> > >
> > > Brian,
> > >
> > > You do not need to secure your own registered address/es(your
> network has to
> > > be bigger than /19 space to qualify). The IP address/es assigned to you
> > > from your providers (/24 or shorter address space) will work for you as
> > > long as you are running BGP(no longer prefix than /24). However you
> need to
> > > secure and AS from ARIN(if you are multihomed you will qualify).
> > >
> > > I hope this helps.
> > >
> > > HK
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Brian T. Albert"
> >
> > > To: "MADMAN"
> > > Cc:
> > > Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 10:51 AM
> > > Subject: RE: BGP & multihoming
> > >
> > > > When you say "your own registered address/es", do you mean prefixes
> > > assigned
> > > > to you from your 2 providers or obtained from another authority? What
> > > other
> > > > authority can assign you prefixes independent of you providers,
> and what
> > > are
> > > > the requirements to obtain them?
> > > >
> > > > BA
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: MADMAN [mailto:dave@interprise.com]
> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 09, 2002 9:12 PM
> > > > To: Brian T. Albert
> > > > Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> > > > Subject: Re: BGP & multihoming
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > You don't need NAT if you have your own registered address/es. No
> > > special
> > > > config required, you simply announce your public address/es
> > > >
> > > > Dave
> > > >
> > > > "Brian T. Albert" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In the real world can BGP multihoming to 2 different providers be
> > > > > accomplished without NAT for the internal networks? I have
> found some
> > > > links
> > > > > on CCO http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/459/BGP-PIX.htm that
> show how to
> > > > do
> > > > > it with NAT, but is it possible without. If so, can someone
> supply some
> > > > > config examples or good links.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > >
> > > > > Brian T. Albert
> > > > > brian.albert@worldnet.att.net
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > David Madland
> > > > CCIE# 2016
> > > > Sr. Network Engineer
> > > > Qwest Communications Inc.
> > > > 612-664-3367
> > > > dave@interprise.com
> > > >
> >
> > --
> > David Madland
> > CCIE# 2016
> > Sr. Network Engineer
> > Qwest Communications
> > 612-664-3367
> >
> > "You don't make the poor richer by making the rich poorer." --Winston
> > Churchill
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Tue Dec 03 2002 - 07:22:57 GMT-3