[27628] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Alternative to BGP-4 for multihoming?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Israel)
Wed Mar 1 15:35:39 2000
From: David Israel <disrael@dedaana.dev.onyx.net>
Message-Id: <200003012032.MAA05027@dedaana.dev.onyx.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 12:32:54 -0800 (PST)
To: hank@att.net.il
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
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
The documentation is pretty vague on a few points, but it looks like
all it does is NAT and (possibly, it's very bague on this point) resolve
DNS for servers based on what it thinks is the best path to use. There's
just a static route on your side; the customer gets a network from each
ISP, and the LinkProof NATs to whichever network it thinks is best.
Good points: He isn't peering with you. You don't need to do anything
to support this. Just statically route him and let him do the rest.
Bad points: He asked if you support it; ergo, he doesn't know how it
works. Prepare your NOC/customer service folks for this guy to call
in and bitch if the thing fails. It's also wasteful of IP addresses
if the guy's got a big network back there, since he has to number
every machine seperately for every connection he's got. Lastly, they're
really vague in the online docs on how, exactly, they redirect traffic
going to the customer. They just say they redirect it, and later say that
the box will be "taking responsibility for... DNS support for resources
that need to be accessed from the Internet." Sounds iffy to me.
In short, if it were my customer, I'd say something like, "It's your
funeral. Have a ball." Only I'd say it nicely.
-Dave
Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il> 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
>
>
