This is not correct. Let's do an example:
WISP-A is getting bandwidth from Provider A. They have a /20 network.
Provider A has to allow that /20 in their BGP filters.
WISP-B is getting bandwidth from Provider B. They have a /20 network.
Provider B has to allow that /20 in their BGP fitlers.
WISP-A and WISP-B setup a peering, but also to allow failover if either
Provider goes down. Thus Provider A and Provider B both have to allow
BOTH /20 networks in their BGP filters.
Now, for some unknown reason, WISP-B decides to start announcing
WISP-A's /20 network as local to their network. BGP will become very
confused, and thus WISP-A will essentially be down. All of this with a
single network entry by WISP-B... they just wiped out WISP-A.
Travis
Microserv
Zack Kneisley wrote:
On 4/26/07, Travis Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My personal concern would be turning over my IP block to my competition.
They would have to have enough control to allow BGP routes from their
upstream. Technically they could misconfigure a router accidentally and
take your entire network down. :(
That is what BGP filtering and prefixes are about. Either you peer
correctly or incorrectly and don't peer. No turning over blocks
happen.
Travis
Microserv
Mike Hammett wrote:
> If they're network peering, they'd be connecting each other's networks
> together to exchange local traffic that way. They could also have an
> alliance where if someone's Internet feeds go out, they use another
> WISP's Internet feed until restoration.
>
This is great and what a reliable network is made of.
--
WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
