nanog mailing list archives
Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers.
From: Adrian Minta <adrian.minta () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 12:06:04 +0300
Shared link for BGP connectivity is a bad idea. Imagine that one of your customer leave proxy-arp on his interface, or imagine that he makes a Layer2 loop. Then all other customers will be affected. Usually a customer with BGP is on another level, so a gain of some IP's doesn't worth the trouble IMHO.
-- Best regards, Adrian Minta
Current thread:
- Subnet Size for BGP peers. Jim Wininger (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Nathan Ward (Jul 29)
- RE: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Paul Stewart (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Benjamin Billon (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 30)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Mikael Abrahamsson (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Barton F Bruce (Jul 29)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Doug McIntyre (Jul 30)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Roy (Jul 30)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Doug McIntyre (Jul 30)
- Re: Subnet Size for BGP peers. Adrian Minta (Jul 30)