[82214] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Roesen)
Fri Jul 8 19:27:16 2005
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2005 01:26:49 +0200
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
Mail-Followup-To: NANOG <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <42CF03B3.4000005@nrg4u.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, Jul 09, 2005 at 12:52:35AM +0200, Andre Oppermann wrote:
> >Multihomed end sites usually get away with receiving only default route
> >or some partial routes from their upstreams. So technically you can
> >BGP multihome with Cisco 1600 or even smaller easily (dunno where BGP
> >support is starting to become available).
>
> Technically yes, practically no. At least not for the purposes people
> normally want to multihome.
I cannot confirm this observation from my experience supporting a number
of customers with their multihoming setups that I've either designed
myself or supported as part of "managed internet access" solutions.
I _did_ see several badly designed setups though that had full tables
(and associated hardware overkill) but didn't need it. Consequence:
wasted money, worse convergence times and routers falling over because
of RAM depletion and fragmentation over time.
Regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
