Hi, On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:13:05PM +0200, Jan-Ahrent-Czmok wrote:
Some providers are multihomed but cannot cover the costs, even for a small lir.
If you want to be multihomed, the costs for routers & co. are far higher than for being LIR. If you can't afford being LIR, be single-homed.
By also looking at the "old SWAMP" space we also should look more into this.
[...]
This is quite easy. Stop listening to it.
This would dump the traffic to the owners of these blocks (e.g. AFAIK xlink and RIPE) and SHOULD NOT be the correct way.
Nonsense. Nobody is announcing 192.0.0.0/8, or supernets of other's networks - and what is in the RIPE database doesn't affect routing. To show the first few things from 192/8: *>i192.0.32.0 195.158.244.133 100 0 1755 1239 5676 226 i *>i192.0.34.0 195.158.244.133 100 0 1755 1239 5676 226 i * i192.0.36.0 195.206.66.61 3 100 0 3300 701 2914 20144 i *>i 195.158.244.133 100 0 1755 1239 2914 2014 4 i * i192.1.0.0/16 195.206.66.61 3 100 0 3300 701 1 i *>i 195.158.244.133 100 0 1755 1239 1 i * i192.2.0.0/16 195.206.66.61 3 100 0 3300 701 1 i *>i 195.158.244.133 100 0 1755 1239 1 i so if I filter those, why should the traffic go to XLink? Why should *any* traffic go to RIPE? It will be just blackholed (or default-routed to one of my upstreams, if I happen to have a default-route). Please do your homework about routing and BGP before selling people consulting about multihoming. Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- SpaceNet AG Mail: netmaster@Space.Net Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Tel : +49-89-32356-0 80807 Muenchen Fax : +49-89-32356-299