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
RAS, 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
|