nanog mailing list archives
Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP
From: Seth Mattinen <sethm () rollernet us>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 21:14:29 -0800
On 3/3/14, 7:20 PM, Randy Carpenter wrote:
Is there some technical reason that BGP is not an option? You could allow them to announce their AT&T space via you as a secondary.
With the risk of starting holy war on how BGP works on dialup and that providers should permit such, the OP has not specified what transport methods is in play with AT&T which could limit such an option. ~Seth
Current thread:
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP, (continued)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Matthew Crocker (Mar 03)
- RE: ISP inbound failover without BGP Ray (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Eric A Louie (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Joe Greco (Mar 03)
- RE: ISP inbound failover without BGP Ray (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Randy Carpenter (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Arturo Servin (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Eric A Louie (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Faisal Imtiaz (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Justin M. Streiner (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Jon Lewis (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Seth Mattinen (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Vlade Ristevski (Mar 04)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Matthew Crocker (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP William Herrin (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Sebastian Spies (Mar 04)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Justin M. Streiner (Mar 03)
- Re: ISP inbound failover without BGP Hank Nussbacher (Mar 03)