[144882] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: wet-behind-the-ears whippersnapper seeking advice on building a
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Patrick W. Gilmore)
Tue Sep 20 15:01:16 2011
From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net>
In-Reply-To: <CF92A88C-E336-4C30-A159-4ABCF38A6177@delong.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:01:07 -0400
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 20, 2011, at 2:54 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> Why would you say that a GRE or other tunnel is not full-time =
connectivity? I have full-time GRE tunnels to two ISPs and they do =
actually constitute multihoming under the ARIN interpretation of NRPM =
2.7.
>=20
>> i.e. if you have a leased line connection to ISP-A, and a tunnel over =
that connection to ISP-B, and either A or your leased line fail, then =
you're down. That's not multihoming.
>>=20
>=20
> In my case, I have full-time circuits to two entities that provide =
very limited IPv4 services. I use those two connections to route GRE =
tunnels to routers in colocation facilities. My AS consists of the =
routers in the colocation facilities combined with the routers at my =
primary location and the networks to which they are attached. The GRE =
tunnels provide OSPF and iBGP routing to the routers at my primary =
location and my prefixes are anchored on the routers at the primary =
location. The colo routers provide the eBGP border connectivity to the =
upstream routers at each of the colos.
>=20
> In what way is this not multihoming?
In the way that you are apparently incapable of reading what was =
written. Jon very clearly states that if the GRE tunnel goes over the =
same physical infrastructure, it is not multihoming. Then you go on to =
explain how you have two physical lines.
I'd tell you to stop trolling, but I honestly wonder if you are =
trolling.
--=20
TTFN,
patrick
