[147994] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: Misconceptions, was: IPv6 RA vs DHCPv6 - The chosen one?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vitkovsky, Adam)
Thu Dec 29 06:07:25 2011
From: "Vitkovsky, Adam" <avitkovsky@emea.att.com>
To: "Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu" <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>, Masataka Ohta
<mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2011 12:06:15 +0100
In-Reply-To: <14160.1325099085@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
(*) If you think I'm going to run an IGP on some of my file servers when
"default route to the world out the public 1G interface, and 5 static route=
s
describing the private 10G network" is actually the *desired* semantic beca=
use
if anybody re-engineers the 10G net enough to make me change the routes, I =
have
*other* things to change as well, like iptables entries and /etc/exports an=
d so
on. I don't *want* an IGP changing that stuff around wiithout the liveware
taking a meeting to discuss deployment of the change.
Well the only reason why you still have a good night sleep with the primary=
path in flames and all those in stone carved static routes is that your se=
rver is connected via ether channel to a couple of boxes with dual RPs and =
redundant power supplies running VSS or vPC and routers running vrrp
All of this just because the end station just can't route around a failed l=
ink
