Re: multihoming, was IPv10
2016-12-29 19:59:00
This is a big reason why providers don't implement BCP38. A customer
has one block of addresses from provider A and another from provider
B. In general each provider only knows about its own address block,
but the traffic comes from both blocks, and the customers get rather
annoyed if a provider doesn't accept their traffic. ("If you don't
want our $20K/month, we're sure we can find someone else who does.")
Trying to keep track of what customer has what block of someone else's
address space is hopeless, so they just turn off the filters for the
multihomed customers.
BCP38 should be automatable at the edge even with multihoming. We
do have the technology to provide each customer with a CERT that
says they have been assigned this block of addresses.
We do? References, please, preferablyt with the commands I type into my
router to automatically import and handle the certs.
R's,
John
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10, (continued)
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10, John Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10, Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10, John R Levine
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10, Mark Andrews
- Re: IPv6, was IPv10, shogunx
- Re: IPv10 (Temp. name IPmix) (draft-omar-ipv10-00.txt)., John C Klensin
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10,
John R Levine <=
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Randy Bush
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, John Levine
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Mark Andrews
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- RE: multihoming, was IPv10, Michel Py
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Masataka Ohta
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Brian E Carpenter
- Re: multihoming, was IPv10, Octavio Alvarez
|
|
|