On Wednesday, January 18, 2006 12:10 PM, Pat wrote:
On Jan 18, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Jon Lewis wrote:
Is it a reasonable alternative to establish a BGP connection with the provider over ethernet?
It is technical feasible, but I don't think 'reasonable'. Stub ASes are pollution on the 'Net.
We've done this as well. Whats wrong with letting the customer use their ASN and BGP peering with them in your data center? They might even get a connection to someone else there and multihome again. Either way, the routes are getting into the global table...does the end of the aspath matter that much?
It adds zero useful data to the global table, but increases RAM, CPU, etc. on every router looking at the global table.
Given how vociferously people argue against items in the table which _do_ add useful data, superfluous info should be avoided whenever possible. IMHO, of course.
In the past under these circumstances, if the customer still insists on BGP after I strongly recommeded just a static DFG, I'd peer with the customer with a private AS (64512-65535). Then they usually ask me to annouce a DFG to them. Sometimes they'd want a full table. Sigh. At least they'd have the future flexibility of adding another provider without much change. I've personally done that too. Chris
On Jan 18, 2006, at 3:39 PM, Chris Ranch wrote:
In the past under these circumstances, if the customer still insists on BGP after I strongly recommeded just a static DFG, I'd peer with the customer with a private AS (64512-65535). Then they usually ask me to annouce a DFG to them. Sometimes they'd want a full table. Sigh.
If they are annoying, just let them use their own AS and make it a confederation. You see it, they see it, the rest of the world doesn't.
At least they'd have the future flexibility of adding another provider without much change. I've personally done that too.
Easier if they're using their own ASN. -- TTFN, patrick
participants (2)
-
Chris Ranch -
Patrick W. Gilmore