Strange practices?

Andy Davidson andy at
Tue Jun 8 09:02:51 UTC 2010


On 7 Jun 2010, at 23:02, Joel M Snyder <Joel.Snyder at Opus1.COM> wrote:

> On 6/7/10 11:51 PM:
>> Has anyone ever heard of a multi-homed enterprise not running bgp with either of 2 providers, but instead, each provider statically routes a block to their common customer and also each originates this block in BGP?
> Yes, this is common and works fine. [...] Ugly, but given the vast chalice of despair that is the global BGP table, hardly a drop in the bucket.

Ugly, failover might not work depending on just what is actually configured, and there is of course no need to take the full table if you want to do it right, with BGP.

It does also marry your network to one provider, which might not suit depending on how independent you want to be (what will happen to your pricing with the address space incumbent at renew time, or what will happen in the event of their commercial failure).

Because something will likely work, does not make it a scalable or sensible design.

Just do it right from the start :-)


More information about the NANOG mailing list