nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP and aggregation
From: Austin Schutz <tex () off org>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 12:27:09 -0700
On Mon, May 13, 2002 at 06:57:19AM -0400, PS wrote:
On Mon, 13 May 2002, E.B. Dreger wrote:As long as this is getting messy... I'm tempted to suggest confederations. Or spending a few extra bucks on a second ASN, although that doesn't scale.Multiple ASNs wouldn't solve anything in this case. What was wanted was under normal circumstances both A and B only announce a /20, and when the link between A and B breaks announce more specifics. Multiple ASN = inconsistent AS.. no no.
Not necessarily. If 'A' originates the aggregate route it can still be transited via 'B', though with an additional AS hop. Not a perfect solution, but then neither is running a gre tunnel. Austin
Current thread:
- Re: BGP and aggregation, (continued)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Scott Granados (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Stephen J. Wilcox (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Scott Granados (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation E.B. Dreger (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Richard A Steenbergen (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Forrest W. Christian (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Stephen J. Wilcox (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation PS (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Ralph Doncaster (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation E.B. Dreger (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation PS (May 13)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Austin Schutz (May 13)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Stephen Griffin (May 13)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Scott Granados (May 12)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Forrest W. Christian (May 13)
- Re: BGP and aggregation Richard A Steenbergen (May 14)