RE: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes
What's the netblock and ASN you already have? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Edward W. Ray Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:50 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes spam was a lousy name... -Original Message- From: spam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:44 AM To: 'nanog@merit.edu' Subject: FW: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes I recently made a request to get a cable modem connection at my home. I went for one of those $29.95 for three month specials in case I run afoul of some rules prohibiting what I am going to do. I already have a multi-T1 connection with a Class C block and BGP running on my Cisco 3640 router, and was looking to become multi-homed. The cable connection is via bridge/DHCP cable modem, and was going to hook it up to the Cisco 3640. I have already done the research and know from what block of IP addresses I will be assigned, and the BGP route tables/peers. I would like to use BGP to force inbound and outbound routing only through particular peers, Sprint (AS 1239) and UUNET (AS 701). I have been reading Practical BGP by Whate, McPherson and Sangli and this appears to be possible. However, do my adjacent routers need to support BGP in order for this to work? Could I use other routing protocols to accomplish this, or would this require knowledge of all possible downstream router IP addresses? Edward W. Ray
RE: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes
66.6.208.1/24, ASN is currently 11509 but I will be getting my own shortly. Edward W. Ray -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:54 AM To: Edward W. Ray; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes What's the netblock and ASN you already have? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Edward W. Ray Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:50 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes spam was a lousy name... -Original Message- From: spam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:44 AM To: 'nanog@merit.edu' Subject: FW: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes I recently made a request to get a cable modem connection at my home. I went for one of those $29.95 for three month specials in case I run afoul of some rules prohibiting what I am going to do. I already have a multi-T1 connection with a Class C block and BGP running on my Cisco 3640 router, and was looking to become multi-homed. The cable connection is via bridge/DHCP cable modem, and was going to hook it up to the Cisco 3640. I have already done the research and know from what block of IP addresses I will be assigned, and the BGP route tables/peers. I would like to use BGP to force inbound and outbound routing only through particular peers, Sprint (AS 1239) and UUNET (AS 701). I have been reading Practical BGP by Whate, McPherson and Sangli and this appears to be possible. However, do my adjacent routers need to support BGP in order for this to work? Could I use other routing protocols to accomplish this, or would this require knowledge of all possible downstream router IP addresses? Edward W. Ray
RE: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes
There is nothing about a cable modem that would normally prevent a BGP session. Nor do all the intermediate routers need to support BGP (multi-hop BGP). However, direct connections are preferred. Your _real_ challenge is convincing Roadrunner's NOC staff to program one of their backbone routers to do a BGP session with a cable modem sub. Or, for that matter, getting them to even route a non-roadrunner IP block to a cable modem sub. Instead you might try borrowing a bunch of old 2500s and setting up a test lab that isn't connected to actual net. Best of luck on your CCIE. John At 02:06 PM 11/2/2005, Edward W. Ray wrote: 66.6.208.1/24, ASN is currently 11509 but I will be getting my own shortly. Edward W. Ray -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Hannigan, Martin Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:54 AM To: Edward W. Ray; nanog@merit.edu Subject: RE: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes What's the netblock and ASN you already have? -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Edward W. Ray Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 2:50 PM To: nanog@merit.edu Subject: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes spam was a lousy name... -Original Message- From: spam [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:44 AM To: 'nanog@merit.edu' Subject: FW: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes I recently made a request to get a cable modem connection at my home. I went for one of those $29.95 for three month specials in case I run afoul of some rules prohibiting what I am going to do. I already have a multi-T1 connection with a Class C block and BGP running on my Cisco 3640 router, and was looking to become multi-homed. The cable connection is via bridge/DHCP cable modem, and was going to hook it up to the Cisco 3640. I have already done the research and know from what block of IP addresses I will be assigned, and the BGP route tables/peers. I would like to use BGP to force inbound and outbound routing only through particular peers, Sprint (AS 1239) and UUNET (AS 701). I have been reading Practical BGP by Whate, McPherson and Sangli and this appears to be possible. However, do my adjacent routers need to support BGP in order for this to work? Could I use other routing protocols to accomplish this, or would this require knowledge of all possible downstream router IP addresses? Edward W. Ray
Re: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 03:35:07PM -0600, John Dupuy wrote: There is nothing about a cable modem that would normally prevent a BGP session. Nor do all the intermediate routers need to support BGP (multi-hop BGP). However, direct connections are preferred. Your _real_ challenge is convincing Roadrunner's NOC staff to program one of their backbone routers to do a BGP session with a cable modem sub. Or, for that matter, getting them to even route a non-roadrunner IP block to a cable modem sub. Instead you might try borrowing a bunch of old 2500s and setting up a test lab that isn't connected to actual net. Best of luck on your CCIE. A) No cable company in their right mind is going to speak BGP to a $29.95/mo residential customer, period. B) The answer to his question about I don't know if what I'm doing will violate the AUP or not is, when in doubt the answer is YES. No sane comapny is going to let this guy near bgp with a 10ft pole after that statement, but then again no sane people read nanog any more I suspect. C) If this guy actually had a CCIE, I would encourage Cisco to quickly implement a SWAT team responsible for reposessing the CCIE medals of anyone caught using the words Class C for a /24 out of 66. space. D) Please do not feed the trolls. :) -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes
RAS, I have to admit that I'm guilty of using the phrase class C more or less interchangably with /24 - I suspect a lot of us still do that... On 11/2/05 2:22 PM, Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 03:35:07PM -0600, John Dupuy wrote: There is nothing about a cable modem that would normally prevent a BGP session. Nor do all the intermediate routers need to support BGP (multi-hop BGP). However, direct connections are preferred. Your _real_ challenge is convincing Roadrunner's NOC staff to program one of their backbone routers to do a BGP session with a cable modem sub. Or, for that matter, getting them to even route a non-roadrunner IP block to a cable modem sub. Instead you might try borrowing a bunch of old 2500s and setting up a test lab that isn't connected to actual net. Best of luck on your CCIE. A) No cable company in their right mind is going to speak BGP to a $29.95/mo residential customer, period. B) The answer to his question about I don't know if what I'm doing will violate the AUP or not is, when in doubt the answer is YES. No sane comapny is going to let this guy near bgp with a 10ft pole after that statement, but then again no sane people read nanog any more I suspect. C) If this guy actually had a CCIE, I would encourage Cisco to quickly implement a SWAT team responsible for reposessing the CCIE medals of anyone caught using the words Class C for a /24 out of 66. space. D) Please do not feed the trolls. :) -- Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications 994 San Antonio Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-213-1302 Cell: 650-207-0372 Fax: 650-969-2124
Re: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes
I have to admit that I'm guilty of using the phrase class C more or less interchangably with /24 - I suspect a lot of us still do that... well, now you can do it for /64s and class B can be /48s (or is it /56s?) and class A can be /32s we have all been here before -- csny except i guess some of us either haven't or have forgotten. randy
Re: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 03:21:15PM -0800, Joe McGuckin wrote: RAS, I have to admit that I'm guilty of using the phrase class C more or less interchangably with /24 - I suspect a lot of us still do that... Well, on behalf of the entire networking community, I hereby ask you to stop it. :) It's just a bad habit, and while you may know exactly what it means and doesn't mean, it does nothing but confuse new people about how and why classless routing works. It is absolutely absurd that so many people still teach classful routing FIRST to new students in this day and age, and then approach classless routing like it is something new and different which should be considered as an afterthought. Just remember, the people you confuse today are the ones who are going to be announcing their legacy erm class B allocations as /24s tomorrow, because they don't know any better. -- Richard A Steenbergen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras GPG Key ID: 0xF8B12CBC (7535 7F59 8204 ED1F CC1C 53AF 4C41 5ECA F8B1 2CBC)
Re: Using BGP to force inbound and outbound routing through particular routes
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005, Richard A Steenbergen wrote: It's just a bad habit, and while you may know exactly what it means and doesn't mean, it does nothing but confuse new people about how and why classless routing works. It is absolutely absurd that so many people still keep them confused, then they can't join 'the club'...
