North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: solving problems instead of beating heads on walls [was: something about arrogance]

  • From: C. Jon Larsen
  • Date: Sat Jul 27 11:11:27 2002 
Ralph, 

I think you're missing the point a bit. Don't expecy to use resources on 
other people's networks and routers to do your own traffic engineering 
unless you pay them for it.

You must buy transit from the same ISP in each city, and then you can do 
your traffic engineering using their resources (i.e. send longer prefixes 
to them that are no-export). In essence you are using that transit ISP as 
*your* backbone. You could buy transit from teh same two providers in each 
city as has been suggested as well.

If you don't want to do this then you must buy a private link between the 
cities and run your own backbone so that you can distribute the traffic 
inside your own AS. Learn how to use AS PATH PREPEND if you purchase equal 
sized pipes from unequal sized upstreams (i.e. BIG_GLOBAL_ISP and a 
regional ISP).

If you don't like this then buy an AS for each city and run them as their 
own network as Joe suggested you could do. I don't like this solution as 
it does not really conserve routing annoucmenents, as you'll still be 
pushing out multiple longer prefixes (one /23 for each city), which will 
still be filtered by Verio and others, and you are eating up AS numbers 
which are scarce. I suppose if you could justify a /19 to /21 in each city 
this would be less of a problem.

Those are your options ... essentially you need to

A. Rent a backbone
or
B. Build a backbone

On Sat, 27 Jul 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:

> 
> > If you want to run seperate networks, run separate networks. Different
> > ASes, the whole 9 yards; perhaps a re-reading of rfc1930 is in order? 
> 
> That brings us back to the discussion of PI space.  If de-aggregating my
> /20 didn't work, then I'd either inefficiently use IP space in order to
> qualify for 2 /20's, or buy a defunct ISP or 2 to get a bunch of /24's in
> the 192-223 space.
> 
> Are you suggesting that either of those (which don't violate any
> RFCs) options are better than de-aggregating my /20?
> 
> -Ralph
> 
> 

-- 

C. Jon Larsen Chief Technology Officer, Richweb.com (804.307.6939)
SMTP: [email protected] (http://richweb.com/cjl_pgp_pub_key.txt)

Richweb.com:
Designing Open Source Internet Business Solutions since 1995
Building Safe, Secure, Reliable Cisco-Powered Networks since 1995