Hi, On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 08:04:42AM -0500, Keegan Holley wrote: > >> That's crap. > > > > In that case: "I encourage all my competitors to do so". > > > > What's your AS number? Shall we see what happens if I announce the /24 > > with your name servers in it? (Except that I'm a good guy, and would > > never do that, of course). > > Yea sure. I have a better test. Why don't you tell one of your upstreams > that you want to advertise a block they've given you to another ISP for > redundancy. Just because you accept a few routes with LOA agreements > doesn't mean you accept any route from any as path.
Thanks for making this very clear: it is *very* important to *not* accept
just about anything that comes along - and filtering "routes from my
network blocks" plus "routes for any exchange points I'm connected to"
is really "basic network stability 101".
Most ISPs these days do not seem to have customers that use BGP-based
multihoming using networks from the ISP's PA blocks - but of course,
exceptions happen (we have one customer that uses an IPv6 /48 from our
/32 due to historic reasons).
> What's the alternative? Yet another AS with a single /24 and 10 web
> servers living unit because their provider wouldn't multihome?
Where exactly is the difference between "one globally visible route" and
"one globally visible route"? And what does this have anything to do
with prudent route filtering?
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpVuauf56n8b.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
