[31163] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Confussion over multi-homing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brantley Jones)
Thu Sep 14 17:19:44 2000
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.0.20000914161858.02da0dc8@mrtg.redundant.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 16:19:58 -0500
To: nanog@merit.edu
From: Brantley Jones <bjones@redundant.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
At 01:23 PM 9/14/2000 -0500, you wrote:
>Wouldn't one of the ISPs have to advertise a longer prefix? I would think
>that the address space would come from only one of the providers, in which
>case the other provider would have to advertise this space on top of its own
>/20. It is irrelevant whether the two ISPs advertise one another, the
>longer prefix would be the first choice for the backbone traffic. If the
>longer prefix route goes down, traffic would still go to the /20 the other
>provider is advertising.
>The ISP who is advertising the route on top of its own /20 can't aggregate
>said route as it only can route to that portion of the address space defined
>in the longer prefix.
>
>Geoff Zinderdine
The problem is GETTING a /20 from anybody. We recently tried and could
only get a /23 (being a small start-up). BUT, that /23 is (apparently)
globally routable because of peering agreements with L3 and UUNET. Our /23
prefix has yet to be filtered by anybody.
Brantley
