|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: disconnected autonomous systems
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Daniel Golding wrote: > I suppose that depends on how many static routes you would need, and how > many routers you would have to touch. > > If you have 10 sites like this, and add or remove several blocks every day > (an extreme, of course), then you could end up manipulating many statics > on numerous routers, which, aside from being a waste of engineer time, can > lead to fat-finger mistakes. this is a hack whichever way you look at it.. just that its better than a default and acheives a result more like the contigous AS would have had than an end user network.. hmm i wonder if this would work if you ibgp peer your discontigous border routers and use a route-map to make sure the routes point at your upsteam - would remove the statics and your manual engineering issues. argh what am i saying.. now i'm promoting this setup! > Since when did default routing become bad form, on a transit-buying > network? if you are a proper ISP with a full routing table you dont need a default and having one merely sends junk to your upstream, i guess thats chargeable so maybe they think its a good thing but it doesnt really fit with the various nanog threads on tidying up bogon packets as they hop around the net. Steve > > - Daniel Golding > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote: > > > > Of course, it required you to point default routes out your upstreams, as > > > you will not see the prefixes from one discontiguous island, in another, > > > thanks to BGP loop detection. > > > > ouch. bad practice defaulting like that, however to static route your individual > > blocks wouldnt be a problem > > > > > >
|