nanog mailing list archives

Re: iBGP Scaling


From: isabel dias <isabeldias1 () yahoo com>
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2009 14:43:20 -0700 (PDT)


Dave,

Your netblock might be a standard /19 or just a modest /30 :-) or you are just deploying IPv6 and therefore applied for 
one of the most recent RIPE assigments. 
Do you have different AS private/public numbers running on your network? 
filtering IGP routes ....part pf the OSPF design would be to find out how many areas you need to have LSA types ...or 
just one area O all part of your routing policy or LCR policy in place. Or just go for ISIS ....and then you have to 
think about L2/L1 bounderies. 

Can you be more specific on the question?

.//ID

--- On Sat, 3/28/09, tt tt <tt_745 () yahoo co uk> wrote:
From: tt tt <tt_745 () yahoo co uk>
Subject: iBGP Scaling
To: nanog () nanog org
Date: Saturday, March 28, 2009, 6:13 PM
Hi List,

We are looking to move our non infrastructure routes into
iBGP to help with our IGP scalability (OSPF).  We already
run full BGP tables on our core where we connect to multiple
upstream and downstream customers.  Most of our aggregation
and edge routers cannot hold full tables and it's
certainly not possible to upgrade them. Is there any reason
why we shouldn't filter iBGP routes between our core and
aggregation layers (we plan to use route reflectors) or
should we be look at using a private AS number per POP?

Thanks

Dave


      


Current thread: