[28083] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The ol' upstream workaround [WAS:Policies: Routing a subset...]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brian Candler)
Sat Apr 8 18:55:22 2000
Date: Sat, 8 Apr 2000 23:46:40 +0100
From: Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com>
To: Brian Wallingford <brian@meganet.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000408234640.A718@linnet.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10004072155530.29921-100000@cerise>; from brian@meganet.net on Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 10:18:22PM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Fri, Apr 07, 2000 at 10:18:22PM -0400, Brian Wallingford wrote:
> This was a relatively attractive option several years ago, when
> bgp-capable routers were expensive enough to limit their practical
> availability to large-ish companies.
>
> Considering the current pricing on proven BGP-capable routers (i.e., with
> careful prefix filtering, even a 26xx can take full routes from a few
> peers/upstreams), what's the point of this method now?
Conservation of AS numbers. However, looking at the CIDR report, there seem
to be plenty of those left for now. IP addresses don't seem to be a problem
for now either.
So that leaves the real issue as routing table explosion - if a large number
of enterprises decide they need to multihome to different AS's.
