Wed Mar 17 17:25:38 CET 1993
Peter Lothberg <roll at bsd.stupi.se> writes: * > * > > Peter Lothberg <roll at bsd.stupi.se> writes: * > > > 2) networks having an existing AS-number in database but reflected * differ * > > ently * > > > in the routing tables (the can sometimes be a config error). * > > > * > > > 188.8.131.52 in AS786 (database) and AS1755 (BGP) * > > * > > This is due to the fact that 184.108.40.206 is used as the London DMZ, an * d * > > even if the EBS receives if with AS786 from the Janet RBS, it will * > > prefer the cheapest route, locally connected to the EBS when announce * d * > > to the outside world. * > * > >From ripe-81: * > * > ... * > o An IP network number can and must only belong to one * > AS. This is a direct consequence of the fact that at * > each point in the Internet there can be exactly one * > routing policy for traffic destined to each network. In * > the case of the IP network which is used in neighbor * > peering between two ASes, say at the border between two * > ASes, a conscious decision must be made as to which AS * > this IP network number actually resides in. * > ... * > * > So either the JANET RBS or the EBS should stop injecting this * > net into EBONE. Any problems with that? * * Technical problem, if we announce it with the Janet RBS, other boxes * on that DMZ might be dependent on the RBS. * * Political problem, they might not want to change the network number of * that network. * * Suggestion, use the Ebone network for the DMZ... * * -Peter Okay, You are right we need to make note of these implications in the revision of ripe-81. In the 220.127.116.11 case this is not a problem politically or otherwise and the DMZ is an ebone net so not problem but the interconnect network is still an interesting one. However, there are only a few cases in the world where this is an issue. The GIX net is the most interesting of course. Basically, a decision has to be made as to who announces it. --Tony.
[ lir-wg Archive ]