more specific routes in today reality

On Tue, 9 Oct 2001 21:29:54 +0200
Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:

> Hi,

> On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 09:13:05PM +0200, Jan-Ahrent-Czmok wrote:
>> Some providers are multihomed
>> but cannot cover the costs, even for a small lir.

> If you want to be multihomed, the costs for routers & co. are far higher
> than for being LIR.  If you can't afford being LIR, be single-homed.

Sure ? Small providers tend to use open source software (like zebra)
and have 2 x 10 or 2 x 100 Mbit/s to different providers, so your
argument is not really true. But i understand your intentions, seen from
provider perspective are right. 

> Nonsense.  Nobody is announcing 192.0.0.0/8, or supernets of other's
> networks - and what is in the RIPE database doesn't affect routing.

I am not referring to 192.0.0.0/8, but in this case, we shall include an
option to return old swamp space to their respective registry and issue
address space from ripe.

> so if I filter those, why should the traffic go to XLink?    Why should
> *any* traffic go to RIPE?  It will be just blackholed (or default-routed
> to one of my upstreams, if I happen to have a default-route).

"if" you have a default route. Default route if multi-homed is surely bad IMHO.

> Please do your homework about routing and BGP before selling people 
> consulting about multihoming.

Ehm. IMHO, personal comments should be kept off-list. I am quite familiar with
routing, BGP (and not just the usual i-know-routing-from-halabi lecture).

I am currently finishing my CCIE.

--jan


-- 
 Jan-Ahrent Czmok        		http://www.lambda-solutions.de
 Technical Advisor ISP	    	        Hofdcker Str. 14, 65207 Wiesbaden
 Tel. +49-(0)-174-3074404