North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: AT&T NYC
- From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- Date: Tue Sep 03 14:07:08 2002
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 email@example.com wrote:
> So, are you saying:
> 4) something else?
I think what Alex is trying to say is pretty much make every router a
confederation sub-AS of its own. That way, you never talk BGP with a
router you're not directly connected to, so you don't need loopback routes
to find BGP peers. If you then configure next-hop-self on every session,
you don't need "redistribute connected" either so you've eliminated the
need for an IGP.
> 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
That's the part I can't figure out without some lab time either, but
obviously you can tweak this setup to _statically_ do whatever it is you
need, the only question is what happens when something goes down.
> I'm sorry, but so far, I'm not buying how a static net is better.
"No IGP" doesn't mean "static", "no IGP" really means "no IGP". :-)