nanog mailing list archives
Re: nested prefixes in Internet
From: Roy <r.engehausen () gmail com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:18:33 -0700
I don't think I ever said that ISP-B would announce the /19. That would only be announced by ISP-A. ISP-B would only announce the /24 that has been delegated to it.
If the ISP-A/ISP-B link goes down then the /24 would be seen only via ISP-C which is the desired result.
On 10/10/2016 9:16 AM, joel jaeggli wrote:
On 10/10/16 9:04 AM, Roy wrote:The solution proposed allows ISP-B to use both paths at the same time, needs ISP-C to minimal changes, and has low impact on the global routing tables.. I have successfully used it in the past and my old company is still using it today.Having two parties in control of a prefix announcement is a bit of a disaster. ISP A becomes partitioned from isp B isp B does not withdraw the covering aggregate and black-holes the of ISP A that lands on it's edge. bummer.
Current thread:
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Martin T (Oct 05)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Florian Weimer (Oct 05)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Martin T (Oct 09)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Roy (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet joel jaeggli (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Roy (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Niels Bakker (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Baldur Norddahl (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Owen DeLong (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Baldur Norddahl (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Owen DeLong (Oct 11)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Martin T (Oct 19)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Owen DeLong (Oct 19)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Baldur Norddahl (Oct 19)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Martin T (Oct 09)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Florian Weimer (Oct 05)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Niels Bakker (Oct 10)
- Re: nested prefixes in Internet Matt Buford (Oct 19)