[155382] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Mon Aug 6 19:41:21 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAP-guGU+P3XCoLWGAK8CTcdJ3Ezq50pBCKxv9x_n+xef1Qtybw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 16:38:57 -0700
To: William Herrin <bill@herrin.us>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Aug 6, 2012, at 16:15 , William Herrin <bill@herrin.us> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
>> That's simply not true at all...
>>=20
>> Let's look at what it takes to configure BGP as I suggested...
>>=20
>> 1. The ASN number of the two providers
>> 2. The ASN to be used for the local side
>> 3. The IP Address to use on the local end of each connection
>> 4. The IP Address to peer with on each connection
>> 5. The prefix(es) to be advertised.
>=20
> Add to that:
>=20
> 6. Primary A, Primary B, Balanced (routing priority via AS path =
prepends)
Not absolutely required and certainly going beyond what is required to =
provide slightly better than the functionality provided with the =
dual-NAT scenario.
> 7. Optional password for each session (some ISPs require one)
Fair enough, but pretty trivial.
>=20
> Or take another tack: have the SOHO router accept a URL for each BGP
> connection and have the provider build the config. Then all you enter
> is your provider-assigned interface address, a DNS server address and
> a URL.
Well, I was going for zeroconf, but yes, that was basically allowed for =
in what I described.
>=20
> Your point is well taken. A leaf node BGP configuration could be
> simplified to the point where it fits on a SOHO router config page and
> does not require an expert to configure.
>=20
Yep... And it could even be made 100% automated zeroconf with a little =
more effort.
It could even use provider-assigned private-ASNs and a shared PA prefix =
with a little additional ingenuity.
Owen
