[40864] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: multi-homing fixes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Hagerty)
Thu Aug 23 20:50:32 2001
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: Vijay Gill <vgill@vijaygill.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <7mlmka4b3j.fsf@challah.msrl.com>
Reply-To: Daniel Hagerty <hag@linnaean.org>
From: Daniel Hagerty <hag@linnaean.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:49:47 -0400
Message-Id: <20010824004948.1540E994AE@perdition.linnaean.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> From: Vijay Gill <vgill@vijaygill.com>
> Date: 23 Aug 2001 23:20:48 +0000
>
> eg, say I am connected to two upstreams, I would like to still
> continue reachability with the global net in case of failure of one of
> the upstreams (as wide failure), or a failure of an upstream POP
> (which happens to be the only one in my LATA) from one of the
> providers.
Take prefixes from both providers and use them. Route your egress
traffic appropriately.
My point wasn't that "there is no need to BGP multihome", but that
many seem to see this as the only way of achieving use of multiple
providers worth of pipe. There are other alternatives, depending on
your application.
