North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: PI space and colocation
- From: Chris Ranch
- Date: Wed Jan 18 15:40:23 2006
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.