<<< Chronological >>> Author Index    Subject Index <<< Threads >>>

Re: more specific routes in today reality

  • To: Gert Doering < >
  • From: "Vladimir A. Jakovenko" < >
  • Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 16:14:39 +0300
  • Cc: "Sascha E. Pollok" < >
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 01:44:12PM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 01:22:43PM +0200, Sascha E. Pollok wrote:
>> >>     "- If PI is requested for multi-homing please explain why the second
>> >>        provider cannot route PA space as a more specific route (with the
>> >>        PA block holder adding a more specific route too)."
>> >
>> >This doesn't specify who is originating the BGP prefix.  Both providers
>> >have to *route* it, of course.
>> 
>> We got this reply to a PI-space request for a customer that does
>> not have his own ASN therefore ISPs would need to originate the
>> route. Don't you think that this implies originating the prefix
>> from two different ASes? (would appear when doing "sh ip bgp incons").
>
>Yes.  But this would not be any different from getting a PI space and
>announcing it inconsistently, that is, originating it from both ISPs. 
>
>Which is not a good practice in any case - I agree on that.

What is a good practice for small company who needs:

	1. Small ammount of ip addresses (about /24)
	2. Multihoming

? 

-- 
Regards,
Vladimir.
  • Post To The List:
<<< Chronological >>> Author    Subject <<< Threads >>>