[29674] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: bad idea?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roeland M.J. Meyer)
Wed Jul 5 12:13:28 2000
Reply-To: <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
To: "'Randy Bush'" <randy@psg.com>,
"'Devin P. Anderson'" <devin@stargate.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 09:07:17 -0700
Message-ID: <002d01bfe69b$18280ae0$eaaf6cc7@PEREGRIN>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <E139rFi-000K0M-00@rip.psg.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> Randy Bush: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 8:38 AM
>
> Jeremiah Kristal: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 8:17 AM
> >> with the same public IP addresses and rely on the BGP
> >> sessions with the hosing providers to remove one
> >> advertisement in the event of a problem?
> Devin P. Anderson: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 8:34 AM
> > Building a discontigious AS isn't the answer.
>
> i missed the part where he said discontiguous as. please
> point it out to us.
More than one hosting providers always means discontinuous
IP-blocks, per CIDR. Remember the big discussion of about 6 weeks
ago, WRT CIDR and peering? If he wants to do this, he's either
going to have to burn a portable /19, or two portable /24's.
In most cases, burning the /19 will be required, depending on
level of prefix filtering, along with negotiatiing up-stream
peering relationships.
