On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 09:14:35AM -0400, Ralph Doncaster wrote: [snip]
You could do a deaggregate+no-export method as well, even with your two different transit providers. You would just need to run ebgp-multihop to each of them from the opposite network, and announce your more-specifics there. Not a perfectly clean method, but at least it keeps your pollution local.
Then there is no ability for remote networks to choose the best path to my Toronto vs Ottawa networks (since the different transit providers would announce only the /20). Instead of using more router CPU/mem, this uses more network bandwidth than necessary (statistically speaking traffic has a 50% chance of going to the "wrong" transit provider). As well, for the ebgp-multihop to work wouldn't that require some extra static routes to be setup by my transit providers?
If you want to run seperate networks, run separate networks. Different ASes, the whole 9 yards; perhaps a re-reading of rfc1930 is in order? Back in the day, there was a promising local provider in my neck of the woods who has an AS per state for similar business reasons. They hit no filters, had no concerns, and when their business grew to the point of being able to clean things up, they did. No fuss, no muss and they're still in business with not chapter 11 in sight. Seems some folks would rather kick and scream. Perhaps people who weren't 'here' to work with and experience CIDR deployment don't think there's any harm in going aginst CIDR. Perhaps it is lack of experience in general engineering; one basic rule of thumb is to solve problems by avoiding the conditions which create them. By rushing headllong into activities that are -in even the most conservative terms- "debatable", you are inviting both known and unknown affects today and tomorrow. Using a reachbility protocol as an 'optimization' protocol for anything other than non-local affects (standardized well-known communities) is practice that is not guarenteed to work. I guess the point is, there's lots of "possible" activities in IP let alone BGP. If you presume that all which is technically possible is a good idea, then you are the only one responsible for the outcome. If you set yourself up for problems, especially ones that are known and trivially researchable, then don't gripe about it. Check who you're paying what. Google '"tragedy of the commons" internet route routing'. And to work to actully *solve* the problem, I'd suggest participating in PTOMAINE and the like. Rather than railing aginst current deployments, network operators, or the price of bits in CA your energy would be better spent nagging vendors to back drafts and to be ready to adopt new well-known-communities. Joe, thinking this belongs in a FAQ somewhere... -- Joe Provo Voice 508.486.7471 Director, Internet Planning & Design Fax 508.229.2375 Network Deployment & Management, RCN <joe.provo@rcn.com>