Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)

[Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>]

On 15-Feb-2006, at 19:33, Edward B. DREGER wrote:

> Want to dual-home to SBC and Cox?  Great.  You get IP space from
>
>         1.0.0/18
>
> which is advertised via AS64511.  Lots of leaf dual-homers do the  
> same,
> yet there is ONE route in the global table for the lot of you.  SBC  
> and
> Cox interconnect and swap packets when someone's local loop goes  
> *poof*.
> Flaps within 1.0.0/18 never hit the outside world.

Personally, if I was going to multi-home, I would far prefer that my  
various transit providers don't cooperate at all, and have sets of  
peers and/or upstream transit providers that are as different as  
possible from each others'. The last thing I need are operational  
procedures which are shared between them.

If all you want is last-mile redundancy, surely you can just attach  
twice to the same ISP and avoid all the routing complications  
completely?

I get the feeling that there's a lot of solutions-designing going on  
in this thread without the benefit of prior problem-stating.


Joe