[88755] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Thu Feb 16 12:44:54 2006
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0602160022080.4366@pop.ict1.everquick.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 12:44:27 -0500
To: Edward B.DREGER <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 15-Feb-2006, at 19:33, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
> Want to dual-home to SBC and Cox? Great. You get IP space from
>
> 1.0.0/18
>
> which is advertised via AS64511. Lots of leaf dual-homers do the
> same,
> yet there is ONE route in the global table for the lot of you. SBC
> and
> Cox interconnect and swap packets when someone's local loop goes
> *poof*.
> Flaps within 1.0.0/18 never hit the outside world.
Personally, if I was going to multi-home, I would far prefer that my
various transit providers don't cooperate at all, and have sets of
peers and/or upstream transit providers that are as different as
possible from each others'. The last thing I need are operational
procedures which are shared between them.
If all you want is last-mile redundancy, surely you can just attach
twice to the same ISP and avoid all the routing complications
completely?
I get the feeling that there's a lot of solutions-designing going on
in this thread without the benefit of prior problem-stating.
Joe
