On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Bill Bogstad wrote:
> > While the above is technically correct, in his circumstance BGP is not > an option. To do BGP you TYPICALLY need to > own your IP address space in order to be able to advertise them > successfully. He's talking about how many addresses his provider is > going to give him so he doesn't have such addresses. Not really. You can get a chunk of IP space from your main provider, and advertise a route to it through your backup provider. This is becoming more common as IPv4 space is becoming a more expensive commodity. > Second, the address space he's talking about is so small that even if > he does get addresses and providers who will do BGP, no one else will > pay attention to his advertisements anyway. Yes, this is true, you generally need a /24 (a.k.a. class C, 255 IP addresses) in order to be sure your route is propagated across the whole net. But I am a bit unusure of this, there may be ways around this problem. > Each advertisement takes > up expensive memory in core Internet routers and the larger network > providers aren't going to spend lots of money so he can have redundant > network providers. Don't go there. Well yes it does take up more memory, but that doesn't mean the route won't propagate through BGP. I still regularly get route announcements for very small allocations (as small as a single host!), and people won't announce or propagate such routes if they didn't have value. For those that care, I have a colocated server running BGP with a single upstream. The reason for this is to announce routes as I see fit, and then tunnel them back to where I want. But anyhow, this is getting way off topic. _______________________________________________ bblisa mailing list [email protected] http://www.bblisa.org/mailman/listinfo/bblisa
