nanog mailing list archives
RE: L(3) / 4/8 / multihoming
From: Bagga_Ajeet () emc com
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 15:51:40 -0400
-----Original Message----- From: Joel Jaeggli [mailto:joelja () bogus com] Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 2:34 PM To: Jay R. Ashworth Cc: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: L(3) / 4/8 / multihoming Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 04:50:15PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:I see in http://www.onesc.net/communities/as3356/ that L3 doesn't
permit
customers to multihome the 4/8 space that they inherited from BBN,
via
GTE, etc, ad nauseum...
Or, they inherited the directive - keep 4/8 pristine, aggregated, and absolute (BBN land - customers, infra), from BBN, too !?!
and I'm curious whether anyone knows why? It sounds like something
there
might be an interesting story in...
Besides the obvious; where their other upstream became transit for (a good portion of) 4/8, be it their or their other upstream's fault in screwing up the adverts!?! I imagine those numbered out of 4/8 that wished to multihome to another provider, requested IP renumbering from BBN from one of BBN's non-4/8 (promiscuous) blocks. But, I speculate. ~ Ajeet Bagga Sr. Network Engineer EMC
Current thread:
- L(3) / 4/8 / multihoming Jay R. Ashworth (Sep 10)
- Re: L(3) / 4/8 / multihoming Jay R. Ashworth (Sep 12)
- Re: L(3) / 4/8 / multihoming Joel Jaeggli (Sep 12)
- RE: L(3) / 4/8 / multihoming Bagga_Ajeet (Sep 12)
- Re: L(3) / 4/8 / multihoming Joel Jaeggli (Sep 12)
- Re: L(3) / 4/8 / multihoming Jay R. Ashworth (Sep 12)