|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Policies: Routing a subset of another ISP's address block
At 21:04 07/04/00 -0400, Dmitri Krioukov wrote: The route object described in http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-189.html states that origin AS is a single occurence. RIPE-189 should then be updated to allow multiple occurences of the origin tag. -Hank > >it does generate inconsistent origin as'es and it does break >path filters, but not only. it breaks all the tools/methods >based on the uniqueness of the route->origin-as mapping. i'm >looking for a more or less complete list of these tools/methods. > >it seems, though, that the inconsistent-as list is growing and >this doesn't produce too much panic. > >and if you examine this list more closely, you'll notice that it >looks like the major part of it is generated by the isps doing >the aforementioned trick. >-- >dima. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Greene, Dylan [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 6:06 PM >> To: 'Dmitri Krioukov'; Jesper Skriver >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: RE: Policies: Routing a subset of another ISP's address block >> >> >> >> Hey there.. >> >> I'd imagine this works fine, but doesn't it leave you w/ inconsistent-as, >> where you've got a prefix being advertised from the private ASN, >> stripped & >> replaced w/ each upstream ASN? >> >> I mean, it should work, but is it a very good idea? The >> inconsistent-as list >> isn't _too_ big right now, which is good, as each one effectively breaks a >> number of common path filters. But if that starts to becomes common >> practice, the list gets bigger and bigger & more filters get broken. >> >> ..Dylan >> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of >> > Jesper Skriver >> > Sent: Friday, April 07, 2000 2:21 PM >> > To: Daniel L. Golding >> > Cc: David Harrison; [email protected] >> > Subject: Re: Policies: Routing a subset of another ISP's address block >> > >> > Actually I've helped quite a few such customers, my recommendation >> > usually is to get PI space from RIPE, and get both providers to announce >> > it from their ASN, this works quite well, and also save a ASN - if the >> > customer really want to run BGP, we have arrangements with other ISP's >> > here, that we find a private ASN (that none of us use currently), and >> > assign this ASN to the customer, and we then strip the private ASN on >> > the edges of our network. >> >> this is interesting (since it overwrites the rule that multihoming to two >> isps requires a public asn assignment) and i've tested exactly >> this scenario >> (again, a customer uses some private asn and is peering with two isps; >> both of them strip this asn at their boundaries (remove-private-as)) >> in my lab before and it worked fine. it results in propagating routes to >> the same networks with two distinct as path attributes, though. i've been >> looking for any operational experience with this setup. so, do you claim >> that you couldn't detect *any* problems with this setup? >> -- >> dima. >> >> >> > > >
|