[126858] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Strange practices?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joel M Snyder)
Mon Jun 7 18:04:27 2010
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 00:02:40 +0200
From: Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder@Opus1.COM>
In-reply-to: <mailman.1725.1275947462.816.nanog@nanog.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 6/7/10 11:51 PM:
> 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, this is common and works fine. We do it with a number of customers
who want a backup provider but don't want to go to the trouble of
getting portable address space, an ASN, and so on. As long as both
providers have a way of shutting down the advertisement (typically
because they learn it via BGP) and as long as the customer doesn't try
to load balance (i.e., treats it as active/passive not true
active/active), then it's not a bad solution. Ugly, but given the vast
chalice of despair that is the global BGP table, hardly a drop in the
bucket.
jms
--
Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719
Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494
jms@Opus1.COM http://www.opus1.com/jms
