Re: more specific routes in today reality

["Vladimir A. Jakovenko" <]

On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:21:09AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
>Hi,
>
>On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:17:25PM +0300, Vladimir A. Jakovenko 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.
>> 
>> Are you sure? Old BGP-capable Cisco routers (like 25xx), especialy from eBay 
>> are very cheap. 
>
>"Multihoming" with something less than full tables won't really solve
>anything - as "multihoming without an AS number", it's some weird thing
>that has its place, but doesn't buy you much in the long run.

Please pay attention to _like_ in above statement. Ohh ... and about eBay:

ttyp8 vovik@localhost:~>whois -h whois.radb.net 216.32.120.133
route:         216.32.120.0/24
descr:         NET-EXODUS-EBAY-1
origin:        AS3967
mnt-by:        MAINT-AS3967
changed:       radb@localhost 19981116
source:        RADB

route:         216.32.120.0/24
descr:         NET-EBAY-1
origin:        AS11643
notify:        tholo@localhost
mnt-by:        MAINT-AS11643
changed:       tholo@localhost 19981116
source:        RADB

Perhaps you are right, and this 'weird' thing was happened in 1998 by staff 
misunderstanding of how they should create route-objects. Right? :-)

>(As for your example with the IX - this could be done without globally 
>visible space just fine, it's not "multihoming")

It depends on IX routing policy.

-- 
Regards,
Vladimir.