North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
RE: AT&T NYC
- From: Derek Samford
- Date: Thu Aug 29 17:44:11 2002
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.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Doncaster [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 5:11 PM
> To: Derek Samford
> Cc: 'Robert A. Hayden'; 'Michael Hallgren'; 'Peter van Dijk';
> 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.
> I think we're both confused now. Your example seems to have nothing
> 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
> 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,
> considering running OSPF for my IGP. I would still run iBGP between
> 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
> corner for 5 minutes.