small site multi-homing (related to: Small guys with BGP issues)
cluestore at gmail.com
Tue Nov 3 18:01:42 UTC 2009
Well you and the rest of these so called "dreamers" can help with the
purchase of my new routers that don't exist yet to support you wanting to
multi-home a /29 and have the rest of the Internet world hold all of these
said /29's in their tables. Most folks who get a /29's don't care how they
get to and from the internet, they just want to always be able to get there.
TE at that granular of a level is not needed. So in other words, you and the
rest of the world of these dreamers can keep dreaming, because I doubt any
sensible ISP would accept and pass along anyone announcing /29's .... and
then there's V6, which I won't even get started on. Most ISP's are having a
hard time holding 300k ipv4 routes as of today, and you want to de-aggregate
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Mike <mike-nanog at tiedyenetworks.com> wrote:
> Small-site multi-homing is one of the great inequities of the Internet
> and one that can, and should, be solved. I envision an Internet of the
> future where anyone with any mixture of any type of network connections can
> achieve, automatically, provider independence and inbound/outbound load
> sharing across disparate links. Gone is the built in hostage situation of
> having to either use your provider assigned IP's (>%99 of internet connected
> sites today), or the quantum leap of being an AS with PI space (and the
> associated technical baggage to configure and manage that beast). End users
> should have the power to dictate their own routing policies and not suffer
> thru 'damping', 'urpf', or other policies imposed on how or when their
> packets come and go. So if you want to use 2 dsl lines and a CDMA modem, or
> a satellite and a fiber, or 27 dial up modems and a T1, you should be able
> to do that and the network should work with you to deliver your packets no
> matter where 'you' connect or how.
> What it's gonna take is new routing paradigms and new thinking about the
> role of providers and users and a lowering of the barriers between these two
> for more cooperation in the overall structure of the network. Just like
> classfull addressing giving way to cidr, I belive hierarchal routing will
> give way to truely dynamic routing where all participants have equal
> capabilities over their own domain with no one (or group) of 'providers'
> having any more or less influence on global reachability for any 'users' who
> choose to go their own way, and I expect that to be an easy (or even
> default) choice in the future.
> You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope some day
> you'll join us, and the world will live as one.
> What is the issue here, that your DSL provider won't speak BGP with you
>>> no matter how many times you've asked, so you're complaining to NANOG
>>> about it because you don't have the ability or authority to change
>>> providers? Please correct me if I'm reading this wrong, but the emails
>>> so far haven't been very clear and this isn't making a lot of sense.
More information about the NANOG