On 9/26/16 9:37 AM, Hugo Slabbert wrote:
On Mon 2016-Sep-26 12:25:58 -0400, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I gather the usual customer response to this is "if you don't want our $50K/mo, I'm sure we can find another ISP who does."
I myself am talking about the latter and included the option of PI space to cover that (although I guess at some point this can be made fly with PA space from another provider if both providers are willing enough to play ball), though from the $50/mo figure John listed, I'm assuming he's talking about the latter.
Who said $50/mo?
Apparently I need even more caffeine that I first imagined...
If we're talking about networks with that kind of MRC, is it really that far of a stretch to require PI space for this? Then again: If we're talking about that kind of MRC, then I'm assuming ISP A can be coaxed to allow explicit and well-defined exceptions on the customer's links.
This discussion started wrt to COTS dual-ISP routers though, as mentioned in Ken Chase's message, no? Where I'm assuming we're talking about mom-and-pop operations rather than a $50K/mo business account.
This is getting insanely silly, especially for this list. A $50K/mo customer should have PI space and announce via BGP to both (all) upstreams. He isn't going to do this with a COTS Belkin "router". A mom-and-pop with said Belkin router who ties to source its /29 or dynamic /32 from ISP A out ISP B isn't going to get very far with it. The COTS "router" isn't going to NAT the traffic out the wrong interface in the first place. In any case, ISP B will never see the return traffic. The rest of the Net isn't going to accept its /29 and /32 random advertisements, period. -- Jay Hennigan - CCIE #7880 - Network Engineering - jay@impulse.net Impulse Internet Service - http://www.impulse.net/ Your local telephone and internet company - 805 884-6323 - WB6RDV