Re: more specific routes in today reality
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 21:29:54 +0200
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:13:05PM +0200, Jan-Ahrent-Czmok wrote:
> Some providers are multihomed
> but cannot cover the costs, even for a small lir.
If you want to be multihomed, the costs for routers & co. are far higher
than for being LIR. If you can't afford being LIR, be single-homed.
> >> By also looking at the "old SWAMP" space we also should look more into this.
>
> [...]
>
> > This is quite easy. Stop listening to it.
>
> This would dump the traffic to the owners of these blocks (e.g. AFAIK
> xlink and RIPE) and SHOULD NOT be the correct way.
Nonsense. Nobody is announcing 192.0.0.0/8, or supernets of other's
networks - and what is in the RIPE database doesn't affect routing.
To show the first few things from 192/8:
*>i192.0.32.0 195.158.244.133 100 0 1755 1239 5676 226
i
*>i192.0.34.0 195.158.244.133 100 0 1755 1239 5676 226
i
* i192.0.36.0 195.206.66.61 3 100 0 3300 701 2914 20144
i
*>i 195.158.244.133 100 0 1755 1239 2914 2014
4 i
* i192.1.0.0/16 195.206.66.61 3 100 0 3300 701 1 i
*>i 195.158.244.133 100 0 1755 1239 1 i
* i192.2.0.0/16 195.206.66.61 3 100 0 3300 701 1 i
*>i 195.158.244.133 100 0 1755 1239 1 i
so if I filter those, why should the traffic go to XLink? Why should
*any* traffic go to RIPE? It will be just blackholed (or default-routed
to one of my upstreams, if I happen to have a default-route).
Please do your homework about routing and BGP before selling people
consulting about multihoming.
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@localhost
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0
80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299
