North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Also, re: 7007

  • From: Avi Freedman
  • Date: Sat Apr 26 15:19:15 1997

> On Fri, 25 Apr 1997 17:55:03 -0400 (EDT), [email protected] writes:
> >MAI is still working with Bay at their data center to reach the point
> >that they're comfortable re-advertising their routes directly.  Ciscos
> >have been offered to MAI, but MAI is still working with Bay.
> As well they should.  Why is misconfiguration of a router a reason
> to change vendors?  How about if we prove the existence of a bug before
> spreading rumors?  There are some very large networks running on Bay 
> routers, one of which I used to run.  I've always found that proper
> configuration did wonders for making it work correctly.
> -Jon

The router they were running did not have an IGP configured.  It's hard for
me to imagine how a misconfiguration could cause what occurred, but I'm 
still waiting to hear what the outcome is/was.

The router only had an eBGP session up to another BLN; even if one of them
was reconfigured accidentally for BGP3, the AS-PATH truncation should not
have occurred!

MAI has been very stable across their MAE sessions - and has been using a BLN
for their MAE router for many moons now.

Of course misconfigurations can happen, but the MAI people are not without
clue.  Of course, my traditional point about Bay vs. Cisco is that it's 
easier to find people experienced with configuration gotchas for Ciscos
because of the large crowd of Cisco-experienced individuals out there.

Anyway, sorry I raised hackles.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -