[7808] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP announcements and small providers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Paul Ferguson)
Tue Feb 25 08:29:02 1997
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 1997 08:23:32 -0500
To: Avi Freedman <freedman@netaxs.com>
From: Paul Ferguson <pferguso@cisco.com>
Cc: jgonz@ibernet.es, nanog@merit.edu
If the downstream customers are not multihomed, there's no reason
to run BGP with them; a simple default/static will work just fine.
Also, if you suballocate addresses to them from within your address
space, you can aggregate them.
This is generally considered a Good Thing.
- paul
At 08:06 AM 2/25/97 -0500, Avi Freedman wrote:
>
>I think the general feeling is that if the customer is multi-homed, there's
>going to be another route announcement for them anyway - whether it's a
>/23, /24, or /16 or /17.
>
>If the customer isn't multi-homed, and you're their only path, then:
>
>a) If you BGP with them and pass it on to the global 'net, that path
> will flap if the line goes up or down. This is considered bad.
>
>b) There's no point, if that route is out of your address space, in
> announcing the more specific if there's no extra path to them if
> their connection to you goes down.
>
