nanog mailing list archives
Re: Strange practices?
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post () rsuc gweep net>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:00:12 -0400
On Mon, Jun 07, 2010 at 03:50:25PM -0500, Dale Cornman wrote:
Has anyone ever heard of a multi-homed enterprise not running bgp with either of 2 providers, but instead, each provider statically routes a block to their common customer and also each originates this block in BGP?
Yes; tends to happen for clueless endpoints or providers who don't expressly require BGP for multihoming.`
One of the ISP's in this case owns the block and has even provided a letter of authorization to the other, allowing them to announce it in BGP as well. I had personally never heard of this and am curious if this is a common practice as well as if this would potentially create any problems by 2 Autonomous Systems both originating the same prefix.
MOAS prefixes are common in some content-origination applications, but since you never know what the rest of the universe is going to do in their routing & forwarding decisions, is really isn't generally applicable. -- RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
Current thread:
- Strange practices? Dale Cornman (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Florian Weimer (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Brian Feeny (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Brian Feeny (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Brian Feeny (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Joe Provo (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? sjk (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? joel jaeggli (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Bill Fehring (Jun 07)
- RE: Strange practices? Murphy, Jay, DOH (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Steve Bertrand (Jun 07)
- RE: Strange practices? Murphy, Jay, DOH (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Steve Bertrand (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Steve Bertrand (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Florian Weimer (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Jen Linkova (Jun 08)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Strange practices? deleskie (Jun 07)
- RE: Strange practices? Murphy, Jay, DOH (Jun 07)