Re: solving problems instead of beating heads on walls [was: something about arrogance]

[Andy Dills <andy () xecu net>]

On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:

> > If you want to run seperate networks, run separate networks. Different
> > ASes, the whole 9 yards; perhaps a re-reading of rfc1930 is in order?
>
> That brings us back to the discussion of PI space.  If de-aggregating my
> /20 didn't work, then I'd either inefficiently use IP space in order to
> qualify for 2 /20's, or buy a defunct ISP or 2 to get a bunch of /24's in
> the 192-223 space.
>
> Are you suggesting that either of those (which don't violate any
> RFCs) options are better than de-aggregating my /20?

The best solution is just as everybody here has suggested.  Use the same
provider for transit at both locations, announce your /20 normally, and
your more specifics with no-export.

Your response was something about "I guess you don't consider redundancy
to be intelligent." What's stopping you from using the same two transit
providers in both locations? Seems to me you don't value redundancy all
that much. If you're willing to route through your small intra-AS link in
case of local transit failure, yet you're not willing to route through it
under normal circumstances, that would indicate to me that the link is not
big enough for its purpose.

I mean, at the end of the day, the argument boils down to you not wanting
to foot the bill for 1) a fatter intra-AS link or 2) multiple transit
providers at each location.

It's ok if you want a bandaid, just don't try to tell anybody that your
bandaid is actually a solid, best-practice solution.

Andy

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Andy Dills                              301-682-9972
Xecunet, LLC                            www.xecu.net
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access