nanog mailing list archives
Re: multi-homing fixes
From: Daniel Hagerty <hag () linnaean org>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 20:49:47 -0400
From: Vijay Gill <vgill () vijaygill com> Date: 23 Aug 2001 23:20:48 +0000 eg, say I am connected to two upstreams, I would like to still continue reachability with the global net in case of failure of one of the upstreams (as wide failure), or a failure of an upstream POP (which happens to be the only one in my LATA) from one of the providers.
Take prefixes from both providers and use them. Route your egress traffic appropriately. My point wasn't that "there is no need to BGP multihome", but that many seem to see this as the only way of achieving use of multiple providers worth of pipe. There are other alternatives, depending on your application.
Current thread:
- multi-homing fixes Irwin Lazar (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Vijay Gill (Aug 23)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: multi-homing fixes Roeland Meyer (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Leo Bicknell (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Daniel Hagerty (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Vijay Gill (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Daniel Hagerty (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Vijay Gill (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Joel Baker (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Vijay Gill (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Leo Bicknell (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes John Fraizer (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Brian Whalen (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Joe Abley (Aug 23)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Brian Whalen (Aug 23)
- RE: multi-homing fixes Daniel Golding (Aug 24)
- RE: multi-homing fixes Randy Bush (Aug 24)
- Re: multi-homing fixes Leo Bicknell (Aug 24)