[155401] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGPttH. Neustar can do it, why can't we?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu)
Tue Aug 7 15:52:30 2012
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:55:19 -0700."
<12289110-9310-474C-8457-0E2C25562565@delong.com>
From: valdis.kletnieks@vt.edu
Date: Tue, 07 Aug 2012 15:51:03 -0400
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--==_Exmh_1344369063_2059P
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, 06 Aug 2012 15:55:19 -0700, Owen DeLong said:
> That would allow a zeroconf BGP-enabled router in relatively small hardware accepting a default route t
OK Owen, I'll bite - what are the chances that a zeroconf router will accept
the *wrong* default route?
If you're trying to do the "Use this provider unless it dies, then use the
other link", you can't really do that as zero-conf, you'll need to tell it
which side is A and which is B. And if you're trying to do routing across
both links at once, that's even worse for zeroconf.
--==_Exmh_1344369063_2059P
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001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=pVyV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--==_Exmh_1344369063_2059P--
