Re: AT&T NYC

[alex () yuriev com]

> 1) You should have a static route for every bgp next-hop, on every router?
> Including both router loopbacks and EBGP next-hops?

Absolutely not.

> 2) You should have a static route for every router loopback, on every router?

Asolutely not.

> 3) You have lots and lots and lots of iBGP sessions not only across loopbacks
> but between directly-connected interfaces in order to jumpstart the
> "real" ibgp sessions?

Absolutely not.

> 4) something else?

Yes. 

> 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?

Nope, we did.

> The only thing that has been clear is that you redistribute statics into
> BGP, which I'm fairly certain most people already do.

Nope, we dont and never did.

> I'm sorry, but so far, I'm not buying how a static net is better. You seem
> to be trading off the complexity of automatically performing SPF, for the
> complexity of manually performing SPF. I'ld certainly hate to be in your
> Ops group when a particular path fails, requiring someone to sit with pad
> and paper and recompute SPF, by hand, for a hundred routers. On the
> up-side, the original failure might be fixed by the time the computation
> is about 50% complete.

Again, there is no static net.

Alex