nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP 011: multiple sessions with upstreams
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2005 03:14:29 +0000 (GMT)
On Sat, 1 Jan 2005, Joe Abley wrote:
On 31 Dec 2004, at 11:01, Edward B. Dreger wrote:Am I missing something?For your provider, supporting pur-laine, standard-configuration customers is cheaper than supporting customers where each has their own special-case setup. Supporting a network of routers where the protocols and configuration is consistent is also easier (and hence cheaper) than a network where each router has special, exciting new config bits found nowhere else. Your choices may be: 1. Pay a premium to deal with an ISP who can really afford to support special-case customers;
i think, based on Eddy's previous message (the original for this) it seems like he almost wants 'shadow link' capability. Given that as a start, dropping HSRP and just managing 2 BGP peers from both ends one with metric 0 and one with metric 10 toward his ISP should satisfy all parties requirements. It should be a 'standard' config for the ISP and should be very simple for his customer to manage as well.
3. Accept the standard setup, pay a cheaper price and get reasonable support.
it might be as simple as showing the ISP that the configuration requested is no more than a 'standard' config called 'shadow link' :) Hopefully it's something as simple as a miscommunication between provider and customer. -Chris
Current thread:
- Re: BGP 011: multiple sessions with upstreams Christopher L. Morrow (Dec 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: BGP 011: multiple sessions with upstreams Joe Abley (Jan 01)
- Re: BGP 011: multiple sessions with upstreams Christopher L. Morrow (Jan 01)
- Re: BGP 011: multiple sessions with upstreams Edward B. Dreger (Jan 02)
- Re: BGP 011: multiple sessions with upstreams Steve Gibbard (Jan 03)
- Re: BGP 011: multiple sessions with upstreams Christopher L. Morrow (Jan 01)