21 Nov
2012
21 Nov
'12
3:05 a.m.
There has been some discussion about using unallocated space for the new
BGP systems, but I don't see a problem with existing networks moving from
tunnels to BGP.
The tunnel systems can treat any BGP'ed address space as "Internet" address
space. We probably should make sure that the tunnels have a default
"44/8" that knows about BGP'ed subnets.
For your example -- 44.24.126/24 wouldn't have an entry for 44.24.127/24
so it should send traffic to 44.24/16, which would then either know about
BGP address space or send it to 44/8 who will need to have the BGP segments
on it's routing table.
------------------------------
John D. Hays
K7VE
PO Box 1223, Edmonds, WA 98020-1223
<http://k7ve.org/blog> <http://twitter.com/#!/john_hays>
<http://www.facebook.com/john.d.hays>
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Bill Vodall <wa7nwp(a)gmail.com> wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages)
_______________________________________________
http://www.ampr.org/tos.txt
Short answer, yes you can now do BGP but you must meet the requirements
in
the TOS and send the form Brian provided in with
the requested
information.
You have a regional block allocation from 44.24.127.x which could be
requested, or you may be assigned another block based on the application.
Your ASN will be from your upstream. Minimum BGP is /24 CIDR.
So is the plan is to carve up these new BGP allocations out of the
existing system or will there be new allocations?
How will the old "tunneled" system work with the new BGP allocations?
Will there be entries in the list of tunnels or will they be handled
in the default routing?
IE. How will 44.24.126.x clients using a tunnel gateway interact with
44.24.127.x clients on the BGP system?
Thanks,
Bill, WA7NWP
_________________________________________
44Net mailing list
44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net