nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP and aggregation
From: Stephen Griffin <stephen.griffin () rcn com>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:48:29 -0400 (EDT)
In the referenced message, Austin Schutz said:
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 06:57:19AM -0400, PS wrote:Multiple ASNs wouldn't solve anything in this case. What was wanted was under normal circumstances both A and B only announce a /20, and when the link between A and B breaks announce more specifics. Multiple ASN = inconsistent AS.. no no.Not necessarily. If 'A' originates the aggregate route it can still be transited via 'B', though with an additional AS hop. Not a perfect solution, but then neither is running a gre tunnel. Austin
The only perfect solution is having multiple internal paths which are resilient to simultaneous outage. Failing that, I've never had a problem with GRE. Back in 1994-1997 or so, I used them a lot for disconnected sites, much as someone else mentioned, across sprint. Worked great and was certainly cheaper than interlata circuits.
Current thread:
- Re: BGP and aggregation, (continued)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Stephen J. Wilcox (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Scott Granados (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation E.B. Dreger (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Richard A Steenbergen (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Forrest W. Christian (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Stephen J. Wilcox (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation PS (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Ralph Doncaster (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation E.B. Dreger (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation PS (May 13)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Austin Schutz (May 13)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Stephen Griffin (May 13)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Forrest W. Christian (May 13)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Richard A Steenbergen (May 14)