North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: The Cidr Report
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of > Christopher L. Morrow > Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2005 6:19 PM > To: Michael Smith > Cc: Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190; Nanog > Subject: Re: The Cidr Report > > > > > On Sun, 13 Feb 2005, Michael Smith wrote: > > > From: "Warren Kumari, Ph.D, CCIE# 9190" <[email protected]> > > > On Feb 13, 2005, at 2:31 AM, Christopher L. Morrow wrote: > > > > > > That and the "I have 1 circuit to $good_provider and 1 circuit to > > > $bad_provider and the only way I can make them balance is > to split my > > > space in half and announce more specifics out through > each provider" > > > argument. I have also often seen people do this without > announcing the > > > aggregate because <some undefined bad thing> will > happen, usually > > > justified with much hand-waving. The people who do this > can usually > > > not be reasoned with.... > > > > So, say I'm a provider that has received a /22 from UUNet > (just for example > > Chris :-) ) and I now get another transit provider and > announce the /22 > > there. So, I call UUNet and ask them to announce the /22 > as a more specific > > Meaning you have PA space from UUNET, and you have BGP so you can > multi-home... I'd expect you to know how to deaggregate yourself. You > MIGHT even know how to send no-export on deaggregated > prefixes, or use the > 1996 policies to influence preferences/prepends internal to 701, yes? Is aggregation being covered in the Sunday BoF's? [ hint, hint ] -M<
|