[126870] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Strange practices?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andy Davidson)
Tue Jun 8 05:05:21 2010
From: Andy Davidson <andy@nosignal.org>
To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <4C0D6C80.1070801@Opus1.COM>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:02:51 +0100
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi,
On 7 Jun 2010, at 23:02, Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder@Opus1.COM> wrote:
> 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. [...] Ugly, but given the vast =
chalice of despair that is the global BGP table, hardly a drop in the =
bucket.
Ugly, failover might not work depending on just what is actually =
configured, and there is of course no need to take the full table if you =
want to do it right, with BGP.
It does also marry your network to one provider, which might not suit =
depending on how independent you want to be (what will happen to your =
pricing with the address space incumbent at renew time, or what will =
happen in the event of their commercial failure).
Because something will likely work, does not make it a scalable or =
sensible design.
Just do it right from the start :-)
Andy =20=
