[39567] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: When will 128M not be enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jlewis@lewis.org)
Sun Jul 15 18:02:39 2001
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 18:02:15 -0400 (EDT)
From: <jlewis@lewis.org>
To: Andy Walden <andy@tigerteam.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107151632230.32691-100000@vision.tigerteam.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0107151758390.6473-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Andy Walden wrote:
> Kinda a different twist on the topic, but I fail to see why a site of that
> size needs to take a full table anyway. If all you have are a couple of
> T1s multihomed to a couple of the larger networks, you can probably just
In most cases you don't. What pushed the client I'm thinking of to
multihome though was the C&W/PSI peering issue and the threat of similar
issues in the future. They only had connectivity to C&W and needed to
reach networks only on PSI. Multiple BGP peers and full routes would have
worked for them in this case. Customer routes and multiple defaults would
likely not have worked.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route
System Administrator | therefore you are
Atlantic Net |
_________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
