RE: PI space and colocation

["Chris Ranch" <CRanch () Affinity com>]

On Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:10 PM, Pat wrote:
> On Jan 18, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
>
> > > > Is it a reasonable alternative to establish a BGP connection with 
> > > > the provider over ethernet?
> > >
> > > It is technical feasible, but I don't think 'reasonable'.  
> Stub ASes 
> > > are pollution on the 'Net.
> >
> > We've done this as well.  Whats wrong with letting the customer use 
> > their ASN and BGP peering with them in your data center?  
> They might 
> > even get a connection to someone else there and multihome again.  
> > Either way, the routes are getting into the global table...does the 
> > end of the aspath matter that much?
>
> It adds zero useful data to the global table, but increases 
> RAM, CPU, etc. on every router looking at the global table.
>
> Given how vociferously people argue against items in the 
> table which _do_ add useful data, superfluous info should be 
> avoided whenever possible.  IMHO, of course.

In the past under these circumstances, if the customer still insists on
BGP after I strongly recommeded just a static DFG, I'd peer with the
customer with a private AS (64512-65535).  Then they usually ask me to
annouce a DFG to them.  Sometimes they'd want a full table.  Sigh.  

At least they'd have the future flexibility of adding another provider
without much change.  I've personally done that too.

Chris