|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0601181459060.1877@soloth.lewis.org> Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick@ianai.net> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:09:55 -0500 To: nanog@merit.edu Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu On Jan 18, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Jon Lewis wrote: >>> Is it a reasonable alternative to establish a BGP connection with >>> the >>> provider over ethernet? >> >> It is technical feasible, but I don't think 'reasonable'. Stub >> ASes are pollution on the 'Net. > > We've done this as well. Whats wrong with letting the customer use > their ASN and BGP peering with them in your data center? They > might even get a connection to someone else there and multihome > again. Either way, the routes are getting into the global > table...does the end of the aspath matter that much? It adds zero useful data to the global table, but increases RAM, CPU, etc. on every router looking at the global table. Given how vociferously people argue against items in the table which _do_ add useful data, superfluous info should be avoided whenever possible. IMHO, of course. -- TTFN, patrick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |