nanog mailing list archives
RE: AT&T NYC
From: "Derek Samford" <dsamford () fastduck net>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:31:28 -0400
Ralph, It all depends on your application. Will you be peering with your clients, or planning to at some point. If that router has anything to do with transit, then you need the BGP tables, as you need to be able to hold path attributes. Every time you see one of us mention ISIS or OSPF, all it has to do with is carrying loopback/infrastructure routes. The rest of our prefixes are carried over BGP. If your application doesn't require you hold-on to attributes (Basically, you never plan on running BGP with a client off of that router or that router will never be doing transport for a router in your network that has clients running BGP.) Or, you could run MPLS, but we won't even go there. Derek
-----Original Message----- From: Ralph Doncaster [mailto:ralph () istop com] Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:11 PM To: Derek Samford Cc: 'Robert A. Hayden'; 'Michael Hallgren'; 'Peter van Dijk'; nanog () merit edu Subject: RE: AT&T NYC On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Derek Samford wrote:Ralph, Okay, no one ever said an IBGP mesh was bad. We were all upset by the mention of an IGP distributed into an EGP.Derek, I think we're both confused now. Your example seems to have nothing
to do
with what I'm talking about. I'm currently using an iBGP mesh in my network, with no OSPF or IS-IS. In other words I have internal
routers
not connected to external peers that are running iBGP. Specifically I have 2 routers that are ruinning EBGP and iBGP, and 2 routers that are running iBGP only. Now that I'm adding a 5th router to my network,
I'm
considering running OSPF for my IGP. I would still run iBGP between
my 2
peering routers, as well as EBGP to my peers. Now if there really is something horrible about that, and someone will politely explain it to me, I'll happily take the dunce cap and sit in
the
corner for 5 minutes. -Ralph
Current thread:
- RE: routing architectures ( was Re: AT&T NYCrouting ), (continued)
- RE: routing architectures ( was Re: AT&T NYCrouting ) Jason Lixfeld (Aug 29)
- 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)