4 Jan
2015
4 Jan
'15
12:34 a.m.
On Sat, 3 Jan 2015, Brian wrote:
On Sat, 2015-01-03 at 11:51 -0500, Bryan Fields
wrote:
That's a case for not being allowed to run BGP with your upstream. It
doesn't prevent gateway nodes from running BGP between themselves to
overcome the inherent static routing limitations of the current 'mesh'.
Regardless, if one wanted to announce a net-44 block to their upstream,
the mechanism to do so exists. UCSD (or rather AMPRNet) doesn't
relinquish 'ownership' any more than would say ARIN to one of its members.
And yet ARIN members and their customers and customers of those customers
peer with each other all the time.
Antonio Querubin
e-mail: tony(a)lavanauts.org
xmpp: antonioquerubin(a)gmail.com
Why tunnel at the gateway level?, let the other
gateways run BGP.
Problem solved.
Not true. Up here in the NorthEast, for legal reasons, there is not one
ISP who will let you broadcast via BGP peer a 44-net block unless UCSD
is to relinquish ownership of the block to you and you can provide proof
of this. Being a CTO for a few ISPs up here, I know the mentality of
corporate lawyers quite well in this regard.