From owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 2 10:11:59 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C13516A4BF for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 10:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from light.sdf.com (light.sdf.com [207.200.153.231]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC0943FAF for ; Tue, 2 Sep 2003 10:11:57 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tom@sdf.com) Received: from tom (helo=localhost) by light.sdf.com with local-esmtp (Exim 4.22) id 19uEgw-000LQR-Tw; Tue, 02 Sep 2003 10:11:42 -0700 Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 10:11:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom To: Haesu In-Reply-To: <20030902144649.GA34440@scylla.towardex.com> Message-ID: <20030902095643.C63339@light.sdf.com> References: <0AF1BBDF1218F14E9B4CCE414744E70F07DF30@exchange.wanglobal.net> <20030901211636.Y58733@light.sdf.com> <20030902144649.GA34440@scylla.towardex.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: Tom cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Multi-Homed Routing X-BeenThere: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Internet Services Providers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2003 17:11:59 -0000 On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Haesu wrote: > > > > Plus, some have suggested just advertising your existing assignments > > from your other provider. Bad idea. Most providers address allocated > > is not portable. Check WHOIS for "ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE > > NON-PORTABLE". Besides, even if your existing provider's IP blocks work, > > and your provider allows you to do this (you should always ask first), > > you'll be advertising a more specific prefix of one of their larger > > blocks. Guess what that will do? > > Obviously you have not had enough experience working with BGP customers. > Longer matches always win. Your provider announces the aggregate. Where did I say differently? "more specific" means a longer match. > It's funny to say I've had up to /20 being announced elsewhere with > provider's permission even when whois shows ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK > ARE NON-PORTABLE. Most providers will not care as long as you can > justify why you want to announce the block elsewhere, and as long as you > properly register them at IRR. > > Yes IRR routing registry is only as good as the networks that use it. > But you know what? Major carriers do use them, and those who filter > routes on RIR registration boundaries either a) point a default route to > elsewhere or b) build filter based on IRR. Yes, most carriers do use them. But a major carrier is not going to use some fly-by-night route registry. In fact, several carriers operate their own registries, and don't trust information from anywhere else. > Try peering with some big national carrier-- they will not peer with you > if you do not use IRR -- especially in US. Doing that already. > Frankly, if you are a backbone filtering /24s, you obviously don't know where > to get to the internet if you are not even using IRR. Even our good old > friends at Verio is accepting our announced /24's now as long as registered in > the IRR. And you sure they are getting farther than that? I see only three /24s from your AS (presumably 27552), and a /21 and a /22. > > But you need to know what you doing. If you dump the routing table, > > you'll see that many networks can't even do basic route summaries. > > You mean aggregation? I don't follow. At least 10% of the routes in the table are unnecessary. > -hc > > -- > Sincerely, > Haesu C. > TowardEX Technologies, Inc. > WWW: http://www.towardex.com > E-mail: haesu@towardex.com > Cell: (978) 394-2867 > Tom