nanog mailing list archives
RE: multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss)
From: "Daniel Golding" <dan () netrail net>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:50:51 -0500
Jade, You don't really need a /20 to multihome or use BGP. Just get an ASN, multiple providers, and advertise your space. There are a couple ways to deal with those who will filter smaller blocks. One way is to get two providers, get space from one or both with a block larger than a /21. Ensure that the two providers peer directly with each other, and that they will advertise blocks smaller than a /20 to each other (/24 is a more normal filtering level these days). Also ensure that whichever of the upstreams that is giving you the space advertises it as the larger, less specific, aggregate as well. Given this situation, you should be fine. If your connection to the ISP announcing the globally routable aggregate goes down, it will still announce the aggregate, then route your traffic to the more specific route in the block being announced by it's peer. Works like a charm. - Dan Golding NetRail, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of Jade E. Deane Sent: Friday, December 15, 2000 1:23 PM To: 'nanog () merit edu' Subject: multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss) I will spare everyone my own personal experiences as of late in dealing with ARIN for a /20. How about some talk on this topic, multi-homing without the application of the BGP, a pressing concern amongst mid-level ISPs and small dot com's. Jade P.S. Mr. Jimmerson... I want a /20, and a pony. Give me a /20 and a pony, I want a pony!!!! Jade E. Deane Network Engineer helloNetwork.com Las Vegas, Nevada Office: +1 (702) 938-9267 Cell: +1 (702) 604-4759 Fax: +1 (702) 456-1471 email: jade.deane () helloNetwork com urgent epage: 7026044759 () page nextel com
Current thread:
- multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss) Jade E. Deane (Dec 15)
- RE: multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss) Daniel Golding (Dec 15)
- Filtering levels (was RE: multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss)) Jonathan Disher (Dec 15)
- RE: Filtering levels (was RE: multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss)) Daniel Golding (Dec 15)
- Re: Filtering levels (was RE: multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss)) nanog (Dec 16)
- Re: Filtering levels (was RE: multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss)) Travis Pugh (Dec 17)
- Re: Filtering levels (was RE: multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss)) Daniel L. Golding (Dec 17)
- Re: Filtering levels (was RE: multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss)) Travis Pugh (Dec 17)
- Re: Filtering levels (was RE: multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss)) Daniel L. Golding (Dec 17)
- Filtering levels (was RE: multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss)) Jonathan Disher (Dec 15)
- RE: multi-homing without the BGP (was RE: Packet Loss) Daniel Golding (Dec 15)