North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing throughparticular routes

  • From: Joe McGuckin
  • Date: Wed Nov 02 18:24:30 2005


I have to admit that I'm guilty of using the phrase "class C" more or less
interchangably with "/24" - I suspect a lot of us still do that...

On 11/2/05 2:22 PM, "Richard A Steenbergen" <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 03:35:07PM -0600, John Dupuy wrote:
>> There is nothing about a cable modem that would normally prevent a
>> BGP session. Nor do all the intermediate routers need to support BGP
>> (multi-hop BGP). However, direct connections are preferred.
>> Your _real_ challenge is convincing Roadrunner's NOC staff to program
>> one of their backbone routers to do a BGP session with a cable modem
>> sub. Or, for that matter, getting them to even route a non-roadrunner
>> IP block to a cable modem sub.
>> Instead you might try borrowing a bunch of old 2500s and setting up a
>> test lab that isn't connected to actual net.
>> Best of luck on your CCIE.
> A) No cable company in their right mind is going to speak BGP to a
>  $29.95/mo residential customer, period.
> B) The answer to his question about "I don't know if what I'm doing will
>  violate the AUP or not" is, when in doubt the answer is YES. No sane
>  comapny is going to let this guy near bgp with a 10ft pole after that
>  statement, but then again no sane people read nanog any more I suspect.
> C) If this guy actually had a CCIE, I would encourage Cisco to quickly
>  implement a SWAT team responsible for reposessing the CCIE medals of
>  anyone caught using the words "Class C" for a /24 out of 66. space.
> D) Please do not feed the trolls. :)


Joe McGuckin

ViaNet Communications
994 San Antonio Road
Palo Alto, CA  94303

Phone: 650-213-1302
Cell:  650-207-0372
Fax:   650-969-2124