North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing throughparticular routes
- From: Joe McGuckin
- Date: Wed Nov 02 18:24:30 2005
I have to admit that I'm guilty of using the phrase "class C" more or less
interchangably with "/24" - I suspect a lot of us still do that...
On 11/2/05 2:22 PM, "Richard A Steenbergen" <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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. :)
994 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303