Subject: Re: [RAM] Fwd: RAM post from [email-masked] requires approval

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 19:37:09 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Peter Schoenmaker <[email-masked]>

    > Teaching customers that they do not need BGP to multihome may become
    > a difficult education process. 

This is where the details of how you do routing in a "jack-up" scheme
become important.

For example, I would use a *syntactically* different address space in the
backbone - i.e. *neither* IPv4 *or* IPv6, so that people *can't* insert
routes into the new backbone by using BGP (of any flavour).

This leaves the legacy IPv4 backbone, wherein their IPv4 address space has
to be advertised, if people attached to the legacy backbone are going to be
able to reach them. However, if they are N hops away from it, there's not a
lot of point to injecting their routes into it, since it will do no good in
having any influence in what path their traffic takes once it leaves the
IPv4 backbone, i.e. once it gets closer to them and their N multi-homing
points.

	Noel

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram