[27627] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Alternative to BGP-4 for multihoming?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Scott W Brim)
Wed Mar 1 12:13:02 2000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.20000301120500.00ab3470@kanmail01.ca.newbridge.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 12:09:00 -0500
To: Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il>
From: "Scott W Brim" <swb@newbridge.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <3.0.5.32.20000301174204.0081c280@max.ibm.net.il>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Looking only at this web page, I don't see that it *doesn't* use BGP. If
it's going to interact with providers it has to speak BGP, yes? It looks
to me like it just automates managing multiple connections, through a
proprietary protocol for exchanging status between the connection points
-- routing information, link quality, NAT status, etc.
(I hope it doesn't do anything which would cause significant churn in the
routing advertisements, since that could have an effect far beyond their
local area.)
...Scott
At 17:42 03/01/2000 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
>Radware has a product called Linkproof and claims that it negates the need
>for BGP-4 and portable IP addresses:
>
>http://www.radware.com/product/lproof/Default.htm
>
>I have a customer that requires multihoming and they want to use Linkproof
>and I want them to do BGP-4. Does anyone have any experience using this as
>an alternative to BGP-4?
>
>Thanks,
>Hank
