nanog mailing list archives
Re: layer 3 switch debate
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 23:55:48 +0200 (CEST)
On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:
On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 11:28:39AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Core routers typically don't do any filtering and the BGP setup (if any) is straightforward, so switch-like routers are good here.
May god have mercy on your core.
Thank you. But what exactly necessitates devine leniency? You aren't taking my remarks to mean that it's a good idea to redistribute a full BGP view into an IGP, are you? What I'm getting at is a small setup where all transit and peering links are in the same location. The border routers at this location can inject a default into the IGP so the number of routes in the non-border routers stays nice and small.
Current thread:
- layer 3 switch debate ip dude (Sep 26)
- Re: layer 3 switch debate Richard A Steenbergen (Sep 26)
- Re: layer 3 switch debate Stephen J. Wilcox (Sep 27)
- Re: layer 3 switch debate Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 27)
- Re: layer 3 switch debate Richard A Steenbergen (Sep 27)
- Re: layer 3 switch debate Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 27)
- Re: layer 3 switch debate Iljitsch van Beijnum (Sep 27)
- Re: layer 3 switch debate Valdis . Kletnieks (Sep 27)
- Re: layer 3 switch debate Stephen Sprunk (Sep 27)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: layer 3 switch debate ip dude (Sep 27)
- Re: layer 3 switch debate Stephen Sprunk (Sep 27)
- Re: layer 3 switch debate Charles Sprickman (Sep 27)
- JUNO.COM Richard Irving (Sep 27)
- Re: layer 3 switch debate Stephen Sprunk (Sep 27)