[47770] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP and aggregation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Austin Schutz)
Mon May 13 15:30:01 2002
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:27:09 -0700
From: Austin Schutz <tex@off.org>
To: PS <pschultz@pschultz.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20020513122709.A8364@gblx.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205130638120.5058-100000@elvis.kravshera.net>; from pschultz@pschultz.com on Mon, May 13, 2002 at 06:57:19AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 06:57:19AM -0400, PS wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, 13 May 2002, E.B. Dreger wrote:
>
> > As long as this is getting messy... I'm tempted to suggest
> > confederations. Or spending a few extra bucks on a second ASN,
> > although that doesn't scale.
>
> Multiple ASNs wouldn't solve anything in this case. What was wanted was
> under normal circumstances both A and B only announce a /20, and when the
> link between A and B breaks announce more specifics. Multiple ASN =
> inconsistent AS.. no no.
>
Not necessarily. If 'A' originates the aggregate route it can still be
transited via 'B', though with an additional AS hop. Not a perfect solution,
but then neither is running a gre tunnel.
Austin
