On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 21:29:54 +0200 Gert Doering <gert@space.net> wrote:
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.
Sure ? Small providers tend to use open source software (like zebra) and have 2 x 10 or 2 x 100 Mbit/s to different providers, so your argument is not really true. But i understand your intentions, seen from provider perspective are right.
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.
I am not referring to 192.0.0.0/8, but in this case, we shall include an option to return old swamp space to their respective registry and issue address space from ripe.
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).
"if" you have a default route. Default route if multi-homed is surely bad IMHO.
Please do your homework about routing and BGP before selling people consulting about multihoming.
Ehm. IMHO, personal comments should be kept off-list. I am quite familiar with routing, BGP (and not just the usual i-know-routing-from-halabi lecture). I am currently finishing my CCIE. --jan -- Jan-Ahrent Czmok http://www.lambda-solutions.de Technical Advisor ISP Hofdcker Str. 14, 65207 Wiesbaden Tel. +49-(0)-174-3074404