You wrote:
On Thu, 24 Jul 1997, Gordon Mercer wrote:
You wrote:
Without the ISP having total control over the customer router, a misconfiguration of filters on the customer side could easily cause the customer to be a valid (and 1 hop) path in the tables from ISP A to ISP B. Doesn't sound like a possibility I would be willing to have hanging over my head.
Well, since my bandwidth is necessary for my business, I think I'd be much more concerned about becomming the valid route than my upstreams, if they get better routing through me, it's not necessarily a bad thing for them unless they're concerned about me snarfing traffic.
They've also got to worry about your bandwidth, which could become a big issue depending on the size of the two providers involved.
If they've oversold their provisioning, then yes, they would, but I can't see how other than that they would. Perhaps I'm missing something? In my particular case, my upstreams are UUNet and BBN, and I've been particularly happy with the current arrangement.
I think I see where the miscommunication lies. We were discussing ISP's running IBGP sessions with multi-homed customers. giving you the ability to announce routes to another provider tagged with my AS is what makes me nervous. Are you announcing routes to BBN as AS 701? or to UUNet from AS 1? Besides that, becoming a valid shortest path between two providers that do more traffic between them than your link to either of them can handle IS dangerous for them, because it restricts their other customers' ability to talk to each other. If one of my customers had 'router bgp 7019' somehwere in their router configs, I wouldn't sleep well at night. Peace, Gordon --- -=<:gEm:>=- -<sMp>-<sMp>-<sMp>-<sMp>-<sMp>-<sMp>-<sMp>-<sMp>-<sMp>-- Gordon Mercer -=<Dedicated>=- [digitalNATION] 703 642 2800 -=<Servers>=- gmercer@dn.net <::>=-=<::>=--=<::>=-=<::>=--=<::>=-=<::>=--=<::>=-=<::>