The Father wrote: > Garry wrote: >> The Father wrote: >>> Is multihoming a valid reason even if they can't justify a /24 worth >>> of IP addresses? I would have thought that ASNs were hard to get >>> since there's a finite number of them (currently anyways).
Please don't spread FUD. Multihoming has been and continues to be valid justification for ONE of the ISPs to assign a /24. See http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four236 for the policy. Same with ASNs - if you have a justifiable need, you get one. >>> Oh and I forgot to mention in my original post that is there still a >>> valid solution if BGP is not an option? >>> >> Not an option as in "full table" or not an option period? >> >> > Not an option period. I'd look at it for example, as the customer > having a T1 connection from the other provider and they're using a /28 > for all their servers. Their ISP may not qualify them for regular > public BGP. BGP is the method. If for some reason someone or something says "BGP is not an option", that someone or something needs to be eliminated from the puzzle. I've done BGP with a fractional T1 customer, they can do it too. pt _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
