[28084] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: The ol' upstream workaround [WAS:Policies: Routing a subset...]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jesper Skriver)
Sun Apr 9 13:44:05 2000
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 2000 19:41:44 +0200
From: Jesper Skriver <jesper@skriver.dk>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20000409194144.A94263@skriver.dk>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <20000408234640.A718@linnet.org>; from B.Candler@pobox.com on Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 11:46:40PM +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, Apr 08, 2000 at 11:46:40PM +0100, Brian Candler wrote:
>
> 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.
But how does this apply if 20% of all (large or medium sized) companies start
to multihome, which is what we see here ...
/Jesper
--
Jesper Skriver, jesper(at)skriver(dot)dk - CCIE #5456
Work: Network manager @ AS3292 (Tele Danmark DataNetworks)
Private: Geek @ AS2109 (A much smaller network ;-)
One Unix to rule them all, One Resolver to find them,
One IP to bring them all and in the zone to bind them.
