North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Alternative to BGP-4 for multihoming?

  • From: David Israel
  • Date: Wed Mar 01 15:36:34 2000

The documentation is pretty vague on a few points, but it looks like
all it does is NAT and (possibly, it's very bague on this point) resolve
DNS for servers based on what it thinks is the best path to use. There's
just a static route on your side; the customer gets a network from each
ISP, and the LinkProof NATs to whichever network it thinks is best.

Good points: He isn't peering with you. You don't need to do anything
  to support this. Just statically route him and let him do the rest.

Bad points: He asked if you support it; ergo, he doesn't know how it
  works. Prepare your NOC/customer service folks for this guy to call
  in and bitch if the thing fails. It's also wasteful of IP addresses
  if the guy's got a big network back there, since he has to number
  every machine seperately for every connection he's got. Lastly, they're
  really vague in the online docs on how, exactly, they redirect traffic
  going to the customer. They just say they redirect it, and later say that 
  the box will be "taking responsibility for... DNS support for resources
  that need to be accessed from the Internet." Sounds iffy to me.

In short, if it were my customer, I'd say something like, "It's your
funeral. Have a ball." Only I'd say it nicely.


Hank Nussbacher <[email protected]> wrote:
> Radware has a product called Linkproof and claims that it negates the need
> for BGP-4 and portable IP addresses:
> I have a customer that requires multihoming and they want to use Linkproof
> and I want them to do BGP-4.  Does anyone have any experience using this as
> an alternative to BGP-4?
> Thanks,
> Hank