[133530] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP multihoming question.
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E. Seastrom)
Sat Dec 11 07:54:16 2010
To: "George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com>
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:54:03 -0500
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0B14CE50@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
(George Bonser's message of "Fri, 10 Dec 2010 09:24:24 -0800")
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
"George Bonser" <gbonser@seven.com> writes:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bret Clark
>> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 7:08 AM
>> To: nanog@nanog.org
>> Subject: Re: BGP multihoming question.
>>
>> On 12/10/2010 10:01 AM, Dylan Ebner wrote:
>> > 3. You cannot trust the second isp to advertise the SWIP block
>> correctly if they are not a tier 1. Even though they may advertise it
>> for you to their upstream, they don't always have the appropriate
>> procedures in place to get the LOAs to the upstream so your block just
>> gets filtered out.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> Just got done battling this exact issue with one of our upstream
>> peers...caused a lot of headaches for us.
>
> Proper registration in a routing registry helps, too.
As does, frankly, having an ISP with a clue... and purported "tier"
has little to do with it.
-r
