Re: AT&T NYC

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 bdragon () gweep net wrote:

> So, are you saying:

> 4) something else?

I think what Alex is trying to say is pretty much make every router a
confederation sub-AS of its own. That way, you never talk BGP with a
router you're not directly connected to, so you don't need loopback routes
to find BGP peers. If you then configure next-hop-self on every session,
you don't need "redistribute connected" either so you've eliminated the
need for an IGP.

> And that:
> you don't use "closest-exit" at all, but haul traffic, wherever, around
> your network based upon steps below the igp-metric step in the bgp decision
> tree?

That's the part I can't figure out without some lab time either, but
obviously you can tweak this setup to _statically_ do whatever it is you
need, the only question is what happens when something goes down.

> I'm sorry, but so far, I'm not buying how a static net is better.

"No IGP" doesn't mean "static", "no IGP" really means "no IGP".  :-)