[126849] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Strange practices?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo)
Mon Jun 7 17:02:08 2010
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:00:12 -0400
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net>
To: Dale Cornman <bstymied@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim95HzUoOnPLlz7SAbu8PppS5zN9_Zn7ms_FbbP@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Reply-To: nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 03:50:25PM -0500, Dale Cornman wrote:
> Has anyone ever heard of a multi-homed enterprise not running bgp with
> either of 2 providers, but instead, each provider statically routes a block
> to their common customer and also each originates this block in BGP?
Yes; tends to happen for clueless endpoints or providers who don't
expressly require BGP for multihoming.`
> One
> of the ISP's in this case owns the block and has even provided a letter of
> authorization to the other, allowing them to announce it in BGP as well.
> I had personally never heard of this and am curious if this is a common
> practice as well as if this would potentially create any problems by 2
> Autonomous Systems both originating the same prefix.
MOAS prefixes are common in some content-origination applications, but
since you never know what the rest of the universe is going to do in
their routing & forwarding decisions, is really isn't generally applicable.
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
