[111858] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: One /22 Two ISP no BGP
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Francois Menard)
Sat Feb 14 09:45:49 2009
From: Francois Menard <francois@menards.ca>
To: Michael Smith <msmith@internap.com>
In-Reply-To: <65C5927BEED3C2428307863DB5C6C6FB02006341@cx49.800onemail.com>
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2009 09:41:41 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
The short story behind this deployment is that Charle's infrastructure =20=
is at the tail end of a submarine cable on an island, where there is =20
only 1 competitor, but the ILEC, on the island side of the submarine =20
cable.
The ILEC owns the submarine cable
But the ILEC will not do BGP
The competitor will do BGP
But the the ILEC will not do BGP
Because the ILEC has yet to do BGP with anyone in its serving =20
territory. Its a SMALL ILEC which does not have ISP customers wishing =20=
to do BGP elsewhere in its territory.
I have told Charles that should he wish to complain to the regulator, =20=
to force the ILEC to do BGP, then we would help him.
His question is rather - how to do multihoming on the same /22, when =20
one the two upstream ISPs, will not do BGP.
And the obvious answer is, S.O.L.
The not so obvious answer, is ANYONE OUT THERE knows how to do =20
multihoming without BGP on one of the two legs...
F.
--
Fran=E7ois D. M=E9nard
francois@menards.ca
On 13-Feb-09, at 7:01 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
> And/or see if bell canada can sell you something diverse.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Seth Mattinen <sethm@rollernet.us>
> To: Charles Regan <charles.regan@gmail.com>
> Cc: nanog@nanog.org <nanog@nanog.org>
> Sent: Fri Feb 13 18:58:54 2009
> Subject: Re: One /22 Two ISP no BGP
>
> Charles Regan wrote:
>> The problem we have now is that we got our /22 from arin to do =20
>> multihoming.
>> If we dump tlb, no more multihoming? No /22. Is that correct?
>>
>> We also have a contract with tlb.
>> $$$ 1.5yrs left...
>>
>>
>
>
> There's something in there about non-multihomed sites, but I'm not
> familiar with it. Telebec doesn't appear to be multihomed, though.
>
> The only other thing I can think of to avoid horrible hackery is to
> convince them to colo a router for you to do eBGP to. Honestly, I
> wouldn't recommend multihoming *without* BGP. One day you'll end up =20=
> with
> some really ugly failure mode.
>
> ~Seth
>
