North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: AT&T NYC
> 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
|