[47774] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP and aggregation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Griffin)
Mon May 13 17:49:53 2002
Message-Id: <200205132148.RAA10762@elektra.ultra.net>
In-Reply-To: <20020513122709.A8364@gblx.net> from Austin Schutz at "May 13, 2002 12:27:09 pm"
To: tex@off.org (Austin Schutz)
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:48:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stephen Griffin <stephen.griffin@rcn.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
In the referenced message, Austin Schutz said:
>
> On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 06:57:19AM -0400, PS wrote:
> >
> > 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
The only perfect solution is having multiple internal paths which are
resilient to simultaneous outage. Failing that, I've never had a problem
with GRE. Back in 1994-1997 or so, I used them a lot for disconnected
sites, much as someone else mentioned, across sprint. Worked great
and was certainly cheaper than interlata circuits.
