[26212] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Portable IP space, isolated networks, BGP, etc... (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jeffrey Haas)
Thu Dec 9 19:38:58 1999
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 19:23:28 -0500
From: Jeffrey Haas <elezar@pfrc.org>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <19991209192328.D8948@saruman.pfrc.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9912091327080.3225-100000@localhost.localdomain>; from Tim Wolfe on Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 01:30:47PM -0800
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, Dec 09, 1999 at 01:30:47PM -0800, Tim Wolfe wrote:
> If he was to use multihop EBGP to maintain a full BGP mesh between all of the
> BGP speakers in his ASN and each POP only announced it's own networks
> upstream...?
Close, I think.
Each POP should advertise its nets via standard EBGP.
They could then setup an IBGP mesh internally. The main point of importance
here is that their next-hop's network must be originated by the upstream
provider.
However this is probably a Bad Thing. You'd need to crank on the IBGP
session's timers to account for lossy paths.
I wonder if there's any particular reason why they're not using private AS
numbers with their immediate upstreams and letting _them_ advertise the
networks.
> -- Tim
--
Jeffrey Haas "... and we cannot ignore our duties simply because they are
elezar@pfrc.org not what we desire. That is exactly how evil comes into
+ * + the world, through neglect of one's destiny."
