[nsp] inbound failover without BGP?

[Stephen J. Wilcox]

if its that small what about a simple solution such as two small blocks from the
two providers and static nat one? a bit wasteful but if its only say 16
addresses no big deal

failing that you need a prefix that you can bgp route globally.. you can use a
smaller block eg /25 which as a minimum both upstreams will listen to but as you
say it will be filtered by most

Steve

On Tue, 17 Dec 2002, Furnish, Trever G wrote:

> Hopefully I'm showing some ignorance here... :-)
> 
> Is there any way to provide failover routing of INBOUND traffic using links
> from multiple providers, OTHER THAN running BGP with those providers?
> 
> In the past I've always obtained a class-c and an AS number and announced my
> addresses out to all of my providers via BGP, but if you're tallking about a
> small network with just a few addresses in use that's really wasteful - most
> providers won't listen to your bgp announcements for anything smaller than a
> /24.
> 
> But wasteful or not, having inbound failover is a requirement for most
> commercial web sites that provide service to paying customers.  If the link
> from Provider1 fails, the inbound connections still succeed because
> Provider2 is still announcing to the world that he has a path to me.  Is
> there some other way to do it?
> 
> -t.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> http://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>