[126595] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Mikrotik BGP Question
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (joel jaeggli)
Mon May 24 01:26:58 2010
Date: Sun, 23 May 2010 22:26:39 -0700
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
To: Ingo Flaschberger <if@xip.at>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1005240354510.13484@filebunker.xip.at>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On 2010-05-23 18:55, Ingo Flaschberger wrote:
> Dear Lorell,
>
>> We will implement OSPF.
>
> so what arguments speak against 2 bgp upstreams?
It's not an either or proposition...
ospf carries your internal routes, ibgp carries you external routes
between internal routers. you can carry default around in either in fact
you probably should since routers that don't need a nuanced view of the
outside world don't need to carry such a big table.
> Kind regards,
> Ingo Flaschberger
>
>
