[145515] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SP / Enterprise design (dis)similarities
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Matt Hite)
Mon Oct 10 23:16:17 2011
In-Reply-To: <DA50BA6B-CD87-4B3F-85F0-F63E1AA960ED@oneshoeco.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 20:14:37 -0700
From: Matt Hite <lists@beatmixed.com>
To: Tom Lanyon <tom+nanog@oneshoeco.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mon, Oct 10, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Tom Lanyon <tom+nanog@oneshoeco.com> wrote=
:
> Finally - are there any reasons to avoid running next-hop-self on ibgp se=
ssions? =A0The upside is we get to avoid distributing all of our transit/pe=
er upstream point to point links into the rest of the network. =A0Again, I =
understand this may be undesirable from a SP perspective, but when our 'cli=
ents' are all a bunch of internal servers it makes sense to keep iBGP/IGP a=
s clean as possible...
Route reflectors in the mix? Next-hop-self not so useful there...
-M
