North American Network Operators Group

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

RE: multi-homing fixes

  • From: Roeland Meyer
  • Date: Sat Aug 25 03:56:29 2001

|> 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".