[36344] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Travis Pugh)
Tue Apr 3 14:07:08 2001
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2001 13:54:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: Travis Pugh <tpugh@shore.net>
To: Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>
Cc: <hardie@equinix.com>, Greg Maxwell <gmaxwell@martin.fl.us>,
<nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <9DC8BBAD4FF100408FC7D18D1F092286039DC2@condor.mhsc.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.30.0104031354120.8543-100000@stonecoast>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Roeland Meyer wrote:
> The problem with this, if done, is that we back right into the other problem
> of prefix filtering. If the customer has a /19 or /20, there is generally no
> problem. But, if it is the usual case (/24) then only one of the upstreams
> can aggragate the routes up. What is the other ISP to do? How would this be
> made to work? BTW, this is exactly the reason we weren't fully multi-homed
> yet.
>
> Yes, greg described a way where both interfaces (end point) were NAT'd.
> However, I have a concern with brittleness and tinker-factor there.
>
Apologies. We are a SP, and offer this service to customers. They get
redundancy, and we don't have to punch holes in our aggregates.
-travis
