[126854] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Strange practices?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Bill Fehring)
Mon Jun 7 17:36:16 2010
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim95HzUoOnPLlz7SAbu8PppS5zN9_Zn7ms_FbbP@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bill Fehring <lists@billfehring.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 14:35:38 -0700
To: Dale Cornman <bstymied@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 13:50, Dale Cornman <bstymied@gmail.com> 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 blo=
ck
> to their common customer and also each originates this block in BGP? =A0 =
One
> of the ISP's in this case owns the block and has even provided a letter o=
f
> authorization to the other, allowing them to announce it in BGP as well.
> =A0I had personally never heard of this and am curious if this is a commo=
n
> practice as well as if this would potentially create any problems by 2
> Autonomous Systems both originating the same prefix.
>
> Thanks
>
> -Bill
So if the enterprise loses connectivity to one of these two providers,
does the provider without working connectivity to the enterprise have
mechanism in place to cease originating the address space?
-Bill
