|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: multi-homing fixes
|> From: Steve Noble [mailto:[email protected]] |> Sent: Friday, August 24, 2001 5:16 PM |> |> On Fri, Aug 24, 2001 at 04:51:15PM -0700, Randy Bush wrote: |> > > Now on the other hand by saying "and if it's smaller |> then a /20 you will |> > > be filtered" you cause undue pressure on people to |> "spin" their designs in |> > > ways to show that they can use a /20 and get the |> allocation from ARIN |> > > directly. |> > |> > you mean not use nat? should i be broken-hearted? |> |> NAT?!? You are obviously not understanding the point I was |> attempting |> to make. |> |> The point was that companies may not need more then a /24 to |> put their |> entire site on, yet may be pushed to say they have more in order to |> acquire a /20 from ARIN, just to be globally visable. and randy's point is that the easiest way to do that, without lying through your teeth, is to *not* use NAT, thereby increasing your visible foot-print by the size of your NAT'd space. |> If you were in a position where you did NOT have your own |> previously allocated |> swamp/b/a space, you wanted to multihome to a few different providers |> in such a way that you were globally reachable no matter who |> went offline |> and you only needed a /24 or less, what would you do? Avoid *any* technology that makes more efficient use of my address space. Then I'd generate additional redundant services (legitimate and opertional, just not used much) to fatten up the foot-print. About 25 Linux boxen, implemented on BookPCs, ought to do the trick for a /19. Personally, I have yet to be pushed to such a solution, but I've thought about it and I'm not the only one. If the rules are set such that I have to do something like that, or fold the company, I would do it in a heart-beat. There is a limit to what I will sacrifice on the alter of "community spirit".
|