nanog mailing list archives
Re: BGP vs. static routing (Re: Why Vadim likes statics)
From: Paul A Vixie <paul () vix com>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 1995 08:38:56 -0700
So it does not make sense for IBM or Sony to run dynamic routing in their internal networks?!?
That depends. If the topology can change then you probably want dynamic routing. Usually when I set up a Sony-sized IGP, I run dynamic in the core and use statics to reach the edges, since while there are usually backup paths in the core, the edges tend to be singly connected. This is identical to the reasoning I'd use if I were designing an NSP. That's what was meant by:
Why? What we have been arguing for has been limiting the scope of dynamic routing only to places where participating in global dynamic routing makes sense.
Current thread:
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 11111111?, (continued)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 11111111? Paul A Vixie (Apr 24)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Eric M. Carroll (Apr 24)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Michael F. Nittmann (Apr 24)
- pull-ups on route annoucements to deter route flap Alan Barrett (Apr 24)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Karl Denninger, MCSNet (Apr 24)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Andrew Partan (Apr 24)
- Why Vadim likes statics bmanning (Apr 24)
- Re: Why Vadim likes statics Eric M. Carroll (Apr 24)
- BGP vs. static routing (Re: Why Vadim likes statics) Sean Doran (Apr 24)
- Re: BGP vs. static routing (Re: Why Vadim likes statics) bmanning (Apr 25)
- Re: BGP vs. static routing (Re: Why Vadim likes statics) Paul A Vixie (Apr 25)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Curtis Villamizar (Apr 24)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Randy Bush (Apr 24)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Brett Watson (Apr 24)
- Re: Has PSI been assigned network 1? Paul A Vixie (Apr 24)