[122616] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Location of upstream connections & BGP templates
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (jim deleskie)
Wed Feb 17 20:45:55 2010
In-Reply-To: <4B7C95CA.3040303@ibctech.ca>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:45:32 -0400
From: jim deleskie <deleskie@gmail.com>
To: Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Of course all designs are limited to the budget you have to build the
network :)
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 9:20 PM, Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> wrote:
> 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. =A0No 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
>
