On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:21:09AM +0200, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 11:17:25PM +0300, Vladimir A. Jakovenko 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.
Are you sure? Old BGP-capable Cisco routers (like 25xx), especialy from eBay are very cheap.
"Multihoming" with something less than full tables won't really solve anything - as "multihoming without an AS number", it's some weird thing that has its place, but doesn't buy you much in the long run.
Please pay attention to _like_ in above statement. Ohh ... and about eBay: ttyp8 vovik@quiver:~>whois -h whois.radb.net 216.32.120.133 route: 216.32.120.0/24 descr: NET-EXODUS-EBAY-1 origin: AS3967 mnt-by: MAINT-AS3967 changed: radb@bengi.exodus.net 19981116 source: RADB route: 216.32.120.0/24 descr: NET-EBAY-1 origin: AS11643 notify: tholo@sigmasoft.com mnt-by: MAINT-AS11643 changed: tholo@sigmasoft.com 19981116 source: RADB Perhaps you are right, and this 'weird' thing was happened in 1998 by staff misunderstanding of how they should create route-objects. Right? :-)
(As for your example with the IX - this could be done without globally visible space just fine, it's not "multihoming")
It depends on IX routing policy. -- Regards, Vladimir.