[122613] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Location of upstream connections & BGP templates
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Bertrand)
Wed Feb 17 20:22:24 2010
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:20:10 -0500
From: Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca>
To: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ffcec29f1002171641tcd8e82dqc31831d8925b2ca@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2010.02.17 19:41, jim deleskie wrote:
> Border/Core/Access is great thinking when your a sales rep for a
> vendor that sells under power kit. No reason for it any more.
Hi Jim,
Unfortunately, I have a mix of EOL Cisco gear in my network, along with
other random custom-built software routers, HP Procurve switches etc.
To be honest, I am very pleased with what I've learnt over the course of
the last two years with my network re-design/build. In my environment,
the layered approach is working exceptionally well (and my sales skills
would have me recommend a different ISP at the drop of a dime if they
could provide what I couldn't ;)
Primarily, my transition has led me down the BCP 38 path (and it's
associated techniques/side-effects, specifically automated S/RTBH),
which aside from IPv6, is the most important thing I believe that I
could have accomplished during that time.
It would, however, be interesting to learn how the former drawbacks of
flat networks have evolved, and what new technologies make them
successful once again.
Thanks,
Steve
