Re: Designing an IX with non-PI space peers

  • To: pferguso at cisco dot com (Paul Ferguson)
  • Subject: Re: Designing an IX with non-PI space peers
  • From: "Miguel A.L. Paraz" <map at iphil dot net>
  • Date: Thu, 1 May 1997 00:51:19 +3200 (HKT)
  • Cc: apops at apnic dot net
  • In-reply-to: < at lint dot cisco dot com> from "Paul Ferguson" at Apr 28, 97 02:18:32 pm
  • Sender:
    • Hi,
      Paul Ferguson wrote:
      > I lean towards encouraging BGP peering in cases such as this, since BGP
      > provides a higher granularity of policy demarcation. If the allocations
      > came from the same provider, and exterior reachability is through the
      > same allocating entity, this provides a high degree of aggregation for
      > the visibility of these networks.
      Here's a specific example.  I want to peer with ISP X, which has the 
      following networks allocated from MCI (this is a real example)
      1. Can ISP X get an ASN?  Assume they will always be routed to the rest of
         the net via MCI.  Why should they get an ASN just for inter-Philippines
      2. If ISP X does get an ASN, I should take care not to leak it out to
         my upstream, right?  If they do not, and we peer using a private ASN,
         I should do the same?
      > I think you lost me here. If exterior reachability is required, then using
      > RFC1918 space is a problem, unless you also deploy NAT. I would also suggest
      > that NAT scaling is an issue which deserves close examination.
      As with my reply to David's message... no exterior reachability is needed.
      We want to have a "country network" that is not limited to a single ISP.
      NAT can be useful though to condense the /16 into a /26 as in my example.
      miguel a.l. paraz  <map at iphil dot net>                              +63-2-893-0850
      iphil communications, makati city, philippines          <> 
      To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apops-request at apnic dot net