[88035] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: PI space and colocation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Ranch)
Wed Jan 18 15:39:40 2006
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:39:12 -0500
From: "Chris Ranch" <CRanch@Affinity.com>
To: <nanog@merit.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:10 PM, Pat wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>=20
> >>> Is it a reasonable alternative to establish a BGP connection with=20
> >>> the provider over ethernet?
> >>
> >> It is technical feasible, but I don't think 'reasonable'. =20
> Stub ASes=20
> >> are pollution on the 'Net.
> >
> > We've done this as well. Whats wrong with letting the customer use=20
> > their ASN and BGP peering with them in your data center? =20
> They might=20
> > even get a connection to someone else there and multihome again. =20
> > Either way, the routes are getting into the global table...does the=20
> > end of the aspath matter that much?
>=20
> It adds zero useful data to the global table, but increases=20
> RAM, CPU, etc. on every router looking at the global table.
>=20
> Given how vociferously people argue against items in the=20
> table which _do_ add useful data, superfluous info should be=20
> avoided whenever possible. IMHO, of course.
In the past under these circumstances, if the customer still insists on
BGP after I strongly recommeded just a static DFG, I'd peer with the
customer with a private AS (64512-65535). Then they usually ask me to
annouce a DFG to them. Sometimes they'd want a full table. Sigh. =20
At least they'd have the future flexibility of adding another provider
without much change. I've personally done that too.
Chris
