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 
  



On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 11:58 AM, Bill Vodall <wa7nwp@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@hamradio.ucsd.edu
http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net