nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP multihoming question.
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs () seastrom com>
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:54:03 -0500
"George Bonser" <gbonser () seven com> writes:
-----Original Message----- From: Bret Clark Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 7:08 AM To: nanog () nanog org Subject: Re: BGP multihoming question. On 12/10/2010 10:01 AM, Dylan Ebner wrote:3. You cannot trust the second isp to advertise the SWIP blockcorrectly if they are not a tier 1. Even though they may advertise it for you to their upstream, they don't always have the appropriate procedures in place to get the LOAs to the upstream so your block just gets filtered out.Just got done battling this exact issue with one of our upstream peers...caused a lot of headaches for us.Proper registration in a routing registry helps, too.
As does, frankly, having an ISP with a clue... and purported "tier" has little to do with it. -r
Current thread:
- BGP attribute 128 activity Jared Mauch (Dec 07)
- BGP multihoming question. b2 (Dec 09)
- Re: BGP multihoming question. Gregory Edigarov (Dec 09)
- Re: BGP multihoming question. William Herrin (Dec 09)
- Re: BGP multihoming question. Jack Bates (Dec 09)
- RE: BGP multihoming question. Dylan Ebner (Dec 10)
- Re: BGP multihoming question. Bret Clark (Dec 10)
- RE: BGP multihoming question. George Bonser (Dec 10)
- Re: BGP multihoming question. Robert E. Seastrom (Dec 11)
- BGP multihoming question. b2 (Dec 09)