[107765] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: L(3) / 4/8 / multihoming
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bagga_Ajeet@emc.com)
Fri Sep 12 16:00:01 2008
From: Bagga_Ajeet@emc.com
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:51:40 -0400
In-Reply-To: <48CAB607.5040402@bogus.com>
To: <joelja@bogus.com>, <jra@baylink.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joelja@bogus.com]=20
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 2:34 PM
To: Jay R. Ashworth
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Subject: Re: L(3) / 4/8 / multihoming
Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:50:15PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
>>> I see in http://www.onesc.net/communities/as3356/ that L3 doesn't
permit
>>> customers to multihome the 4/8 space that they inherited from BBN,
via
>>> GTE, etc, ad nauseum...
Or, they inherited the directive - keep 4/8 pristine, aggregated, and
absolute (BBN land - customers, infra), from BBN, too !?!
>>> and I'm curious whether anyone knows why? It sounds like something
there
>>> might be an interesting story in...
Besides the obvious; where their other upstream became transit for (a
good portion of) 4/8, be it their or their other upstream's fault in
screwing up the adverts!?! I imagine those numbered out of 4/8 that
wished to multihome to another provider, requested IP renumbering from
BBN from one of BBN's non-4/8 (promiscuous) blocks.
But, I speculate.
~
Ajeet Bagga
Sr. Network Engineer
EMC
