North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes
- From: Richard A Steenbergen
- Date: Wed Nov 02 17:24:28 2005
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 03:35:07PM -0600, John Dupuy wrote:
> There is nothing about a cable modem that would normally prevent a
> BGP session. Nor do all the intermediate routers need to support BGP
> (multi-hop BGP). However, direct connections are preferred.
> Your _real_ challenge is convincing Roadrunner's NOC staff to program
> one of their backbone routers to do a BGP session with a cable modem
> sub. Or, for that matter, getting them to even route a non-roadrunner
> IP block to a cable modem sub.
> Instead you might try borrowing a bunch of old 2500s and setting up a
> test lab that isn't connected to actual net.
> Best of luck on your CCIE.
A) No cable company in their right mind is going to speak BGP to a
$29.95/mo residential customer, period.
B) The answer to his question about "I don't know if what I'm doing will
violate the AUP or not" is, when in doubt the answer is YES. No sane
comapny is going to let this guy near bgp with a 10ft pole after that
statement, but then again no sane people read nanog any more I suspect.
C) If this guy actually had a CCIE, I would encourage Cisco to quickly
implement a SWAT team responsible for reposessing the CCIE medals of
anyone caught using the words "Class C" for a /24 out of 66. space.
D) Please do not feed the trolls. :)
Richard A Steenbergen <email@example.com> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)