[76861] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP 011: multiple sessions with upstreams
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Sat Jan 1 22:14:54 2005
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:14:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <E1A117B0-5C10-11D9-BF97-000D93B24C7A@isc.org>
To: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Cc: "Edward B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>,
nanog@merit.edu
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2004, at 11:01, Edward B. Dreger wrote:
> > Am I missing something?
>
> For your provider, supporting pur-laine, standard-configuration
> customers is cheaper than supporting customers where each has their own
> special-case setup. Supporting a network of routers where the protocols
> and configuration is consistent is also easier (and hence cheaper) than
> a network where each router has special, exciting new config bits found
> nowhere else.
>
> Your choices may be:
>
> 1. Pay a premium to deal with an ISP who can really afford to support
> special-case customers;
i think, based on Eddy's previous message (the original for this) it seems
like he almost wants 'shadow link' capability. Given that as a start,
dropping HSRP and just managing 2 BGP peers from both ends one with metric
0 and one with metric 10 toward his ISP should satisfy all parties
requirements. It should be a 'standard' config for the ISP and should be
very simple for his customer to manage as well.
>
> 3. Accept the standard setup, pay a cheaper price and get reasonable
> support.
>
it might be as simple as showing the ISP that the configuration requested
is no more than a 'standard' config called 'shadow link' :) Hopefully it's
something as simple as a miscommunication between provider and customer.
-Chris
