nanog mailing list archives
Re: routing table go boom
From: Masataka Ohta <mohta () necom830 hpcl titech ac jp>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:07:14 +0900
Sander Steffann wrote:
As the ETR is not the final destination, it is subject to blackholing after ETR, which means: The function in question can completely and correctly be implemented only with the knowledge and help of the application standing at the endpoints of the communication system. Granted that it is no worse than multihoming by routing protocols. But, it merely means that neither BGP nor LISP works "completely and correctly".Well, yeah, if your internal routing (behind the ETR) breaks then your network is broken...
No, what can break is internal routing of one of your ISP, which is why you, an end user, want multihoming. William Herrin wrote: Masataka Ohta
Current thread:
- Re: routing table go boom, (continued)
- Re: routing table go boom Masataka Ohta (Mar 19)
- Re: routing table go boom William Herrin (Mar 19)
- Re: routing table go boom Masataka Ohta (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Sander Steffann (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Mike (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Matthew Walster (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Jared Mauch (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Jared Mauch (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Randy Bush (Mar 21)
- Re: routing table go boom Brielle Bruns (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Masataka Ohta (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom William Herrin (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Masataka Ohta (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Luigi Iannone (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Luigi Iannone (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Luigi Iannone (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom (was: Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification) Jared Mauch (Mar 20)
- Re: routing table go boom Doug Barton (Mar 19)
- Re: routing table go boom William Herrin (Mar 19)
- Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification David Conrad (Mar 19)
- Re: [c-nsp] DNS amplification Christopher Morrow (Mar 19)