[26219] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Re[2]: Portable IP space, isolated networks, BGP, etc... (fwd)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alex P. Rudnev)
Fri Dec 10 02:21:35 1999
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 1999 10:14:03 +0300 (MSK)
From: "Alex P. Rudnev" <alex@virgin.relcom.eu.net>
To: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
Cc: David Israel <disrael@dedaana.dev.pgexpress.net>,
tim@clipper.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <E11wBtR-0009s3-00@rip.psg.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.4.10.9912101012530.3557-100000@virgin.relcom.eu.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
There is an other way, strange but working - don't use ASn at all, use the ASN
of the providers with some IGP or _bgp over private AS_ protocol. It work.
(I do not advise this, btw).
On Thu, 9 Dec 1999, Randy Bush wrote:
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 14:18:33 -0800
> From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>
> To: David Israel <disrael@dedaana.dev.pgexpress.net>
> Cc: tim@clipper.net, nanog@merit.edu
> Subject: Re: Re[2]: Portable IP space, isolated networks, BGP, etc... (fwd)
>
>
> >>>>> First, it's my understanding that I can use a single ASN for the BGP
> >>>>> peering at each of these networks. Am I mistaken?
> >> if you don't care to reach one from the other.
> > Well, you _can_, if you want to put the time and effort into performing
> > the evil routing voodoo. I can think of a few ways of doing it, without
> > even bridging over a tunnel. I wouldn't advise it, however.
>
> i disagree strongly. i think it is a really great idea for our competitors
> to deploy.
>
> randy
>
>
Aleksei Roudnev,
(+1 415) 585-3489 /San Francisco CA/
