Re: more specific routes in today reality
- Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 22:26:14 +0200
- Organization: Lambda Solutions
On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 21:29:54 +0200
Gert Doering gert@localhost wrote:
> 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.
Sure ? Small providers tend to use open source software (like zebra)
and have 2 x 10 or 2 x 100 Mbit/s to different providers, so your
argument is not really true. But i understand your intentions, seen from
provider perspective are right.
> 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.
I am not referring to 192.0.0.0/8, but in this case, we shall include an
option to return old swamp space to their respective registry and issue
address space from ripe.
> 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).
"if" you have a default route. Default route if multi-homed is surely bad IMHO.
> Please do your homework about routing and BGP before selling people
> consulting about multihoming.
Ehm. IMHO, personal comments should be kept off-list. I am quite familiar with
routing, BGP (and not just the usual i-know-routing-from-halabi lecture).
I am currently finishing my CCIE.
--jan
--
Jan-Ahrent Czmok http://www.lambda-solutions.de
Technical Advisor ISP Hofdcker Str. 14, 65207 Wiesbaden
Tel. +49-(0)-174-3074404
