Hi F,
Can you define the "BGP over xDSL will flap way more"
What shall I expect here? Did you ever test this as redundancy scenario for existing BGP environments?
Cheers, Reza
-----Original Message----- From: swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch [mailto:swinog-bounces@lists.swinog.ch] On Behalf Of Fredy Kuenzler Sent: Donnerstag, 5. März 2009 19:08 To: swinog@swinog.ch Subject: Re: [swinog] BGP over xDSL ... is evil? says who?
Reza Kordi schrieb:
Thank you all for the cool ideas and even better quotes that I received today.
Of course I understand that some comments were coming from those who are making their profits specially on BGP interconnects.
"If you need BGP buy my expensive LL is the wrong idea pal."
To clarify: I don't consider BGP over xDSL a bad idea because xDSL gives less revenue. It's purely from a technical perspective. BGP over xDSL will flap way more often than any other connectivity. Think of 10000 geeks globally get their ASN and PI space and cannot afford proper connectivty and get it done via xDSL - we will see a massive increase of BGP updates in the global routing table, which requires stronger routing boxes. That's the only reason why we don't sell it, even though we could have made quite some money in the past.
Everybody: please don't offer BGP over DSL polluting the BGP table for CHF 20 or 40 net revenue. There are other redundancy options and backup solutions using xDSL.
The BGP table contains today ~275k prefixes, and is still growing. Common routers like Cisco 7206VXR cannot hold the table for ages anymore, and filtering techniques with all the disadvantages need to be implemented. Remember http://www.swinog.ch/meetings/swinog7/BGP_filtering-swinog.ppt - in case you haven't experienced the old times of a 70k-BGP table.
F.
_______________________________________________ swinog mailing list swinog@lists.swinog.ch http://lists.swinog.ch/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/swinog