nanog mailing list archives
RE: Strange practices?
From: Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder () Opus1 COM>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 00:02:40 +0200
On 6/7/10 11:51 PM:
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, this is common and works fine. We do it with a number of customers who want a backup provider but don't want to go to the trouble of getting portable address space, an ASN, and so on. As long as both providers have a way of shutting down the advertisement (typically because they learn it via BGP) and as long as the customer doesn't try to load balance (i.e., treats it as active/passive not true active/active), then it's not a bad solution. Ugly, but given the vast chalice of despair that is the global BGP table, hardly a drop in the bucket.
jms -- Joel M Snyder, 1404 East Lind Road, Tucson, AZ, 85719 Senior Partner, Opus One Phone: +1 520 324 0494 jms () Opus1 COM http://www.opus1.com/jms
Current thread:
- Re: Strange practices?, (continued)
- Re: Strange practices? deleskie (Jun 07)
- RE: Strange practices? Murphy, Jay, DOH (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Steve Bertrand (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Dorn Hetzel (Jun 07)
- RE: Strange practices? Murphy, Jay, DOH (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? Bill Fehring (Jun 07)
- RE: Strange practices? Murphy, Jay, DOH (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? sjk (Jun 07)
- Re: Strange practices? Andy Davidson (Jun 08)