North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Filtering policies
- From: Peter A. van Oene
- Date: Mon Mar 13 23:56:49 2000
Just get them an F5 3DNS :) (or similar)
Sorry for the lame joke, but this actually illustrates the exact reason why
these types of solutions need to be investigated. Everyone running a
commercial class site will need proper redundancy. Unless they all
co-locate (which is actually the best thing they could do but many don't
see the value) some acceptable solution needs to be created.
We can argue that these DNS and related services prove to be taxing on
backbone facilities till we're blue in the face. In liue of another
solution, simple market demand will force us into these solutions.
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 3/13/00 at 6:01 PM Timothy Brown wrote:
>I apologize in advance if this subject has been regurgitated. I would
>it has, but a quick search of NANOG archives reveals nothing.
>What is the "party line" among providers as regards to BGP route
>I have a customer with a /24 (grandfathered) who now seeks to multi-home.
>Is their /24 globally routable? There's no way they can justify anything
>less specific than a /22.
>Are there any other solutions?
> Timothy | tim (at) tux (dot) org | 4FE3 6D8E 5F7A 61E9 27B9 |
> Brown | Encrypted Mail Preferred | 9220 B6E5 F181 4A94 11C3 | Engineer
Peter Van Oene
Senior Systems Engineer
UNIS LUMIN Inc.