[126862] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Strange practices?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Dorn Hetzel)
Mon Jun 7 18:41:36 2010
In-Reply-To: <4C0D74C8.2090101@ipv6canada.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 18:41:26 -0400
From: Dorn Hetzel <dhetzel@gmail.com>
To: Steve Bertrand <steve@ipv6canada.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, "Murphy, Jay, DOH" <Jay.Murphy@state.nm.us>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Perhaps the providers BGP is just being fed from interface anchored static
routes which will, hopefully, drop out if the customer facing interface goes
down. Of course, this is realistic if we're talking about actual circuits
like a T-1, not so much if we're talking metro ethernet or something...
On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Steve Bertrand <steve@ipv6canada.com> wrote:
> On 2010.06.07 17:59, Murphy, Jay, DOH wrote:
> >
> >
> > "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?"
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes, BGP updates.
>
> ...again, I'm confused.
>
> BGP updates from where to where? From how I understand the OP's original
> question, there is no BGP.
>
> Hence, if one of the providers is statically routing the prefix to an
> interface or un-numbered as opposed to an IP address, then blackholing
> can occur if IP reachability is broken, but the link-layer is not. Is
> this not correct?
>
> Steve
>
>
