nanog mailing list archives
Re: AT&T NYC
From: Mark Kent <mark () noc mainstreet net>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 15:02:28 -0700 (PDT)
Every time you see one of us mention ISIS or OSPF, all it has to do with is carrying loopback/infrastructure routes.
I don't think anyone has said to Ralph why the above is done. Just in case it isn't obvious: you need to make sure the next-hops are known on each router by a means other than bgp. -mark
Current thread:
- Re: routing architectures ( was Re: AT&T NYCrouting ), (continued)
- Re: routing architectures ( was Re: AT&T NYCrouting ) Ross Chandler (Aug 29)
- Re: routing architectures ( was Re: AT&T NYCrouting ) Kurtis Lindqvist (Aug 30)
- RE: AT&T NYC Michael Hallgren (Aug 29)
- RE: AT&T NYC Robert A. Hayden (Aug 29)
- RE: AT&T NYC Derek Samford (Aug 29)
- RE: AT&T NYC Ralph Doncaster (Aug 29)
- RE: AT&T NYC Derek Samford (Aug 29)
- RE: AT&T NYC Ralph Doncaster (Aug 29)
- Re: AT&T NYC William Waites (Aug 29)
- RE: AT&T NYC Derek Samford (Aug 29)
- Re: AT&T NYC Mark Kent (Aug 29)
- RE: AT&T NYC Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 30)
- RE: AT&T NYC alex (Aug 30)
- RE: AT&T NYC Iljitsch van Beijnum (Aug 30)
- RE: AT&T NYC alex (Aug 30)
- RE: AT&T NYC Daniel Golding (Aug 29)
- RE: AT&T NYC Ralph Doncaster (Aug 29)
- RE: AT&T NYC alex (Aug 29)
- RE: AT&T NYC Dmitri Krioukov (Aug 29)
- RE: AT&T NYC Derek Samford (Aug 29)
- Re: AT&T NYC alex (Aug 29)