7 Mar
2012
7 Mar
'12
3:41 a.m.
On 3/6/12 12:30 PM, Brian Kantor wrote:
On Tue, Mar 06, 2012 at 12:01:46PM -0800, Assi
Friedman wrote:
It would be simpler to administer if you segmented it and announced only
the range for which you had routes, and one for which you didn't offer
them. Users could decide whether they wanted UCSD to announce a route
for them, or not. But is there anything bad about multiple BGP
announcements for the same host? Isn't that conceptually the same as
multi-homing?
--
David WA6NMF
Shouldn't it be up to the router user to
decide if they want to do directly
routed or tunneled subnets?
Assi kk7kx
There's the issue of BGP-announcing little pieces of net 44. Right
now UCSD
is announcing the whole thing.