[39568] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: When will 128M not be enough?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andy Walden)
Sun Jul 15 18:11:00 2001
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2001 17:01:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: Andy Walden <andy@tigerteam.net>
To: <jlewis@lewis.org>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0107151758390.6473-100000@redhat1.mmaero.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0107151658420.32691-100000@vision.tigerteam.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sun, 15 Jul 2001 jlewis@lewis.org wrote:
>
> 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.
True.
Of course there are multiple ways to take customer routes, one of which is
filtering. A unique situation such as the CW/PSI mess would have called
for a prefix filter tweak, which, albeit, not automatic, relatively
painless on a small scale (i.e, you don't have to change hundreds of
customer routers because they don't have the talent themselves).
andy
