[20420] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IGPs in use
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chrisy Luke)
Mon Oct 12 17:54:10 1998
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1998 22:42:00 +0100
From: Chrisy Luke <chrisy@flix.net>
To: Megatron <madlion@justin.net>, Ben Black <black@layer8.net>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.05.9810121639090.6538-100000@justin.net>; from Megatron on Mon, Oct 12, 1998 at 04:48:09PM -0400
On Mon, 12 Oct 1998, Ben Black wrote:
> I would say BGP is an exterior gateway protocol and using iBGP as an IGP is
> unwise. Much like posting to nanog when you have no clue.
Hm. How do your multiple border routers pass routes between themselves,
then? Is that not, by definition, an IGP? Simply because it doesn't have to
worry about which "random sized network that might or might not move" goes
where doesn't exclude the validity of it's IGP status. I don't know of any
other protocol that carries BGP data as an IGP (AS Path, MED's etc) in a
way suitable for re-export.
Moreover, many people do use it as their sole or predominant IGP,
particularly where convergance time because of failure isn't an issue and
adjacancies don't need to be built using an LSA model (ie, lack of
network or administrative complexity).
Chris.
--
== chris@easynet.net, chrisy@flix.net, chrisy@flirble.org
== Systems Manager for Easynet, part of Easynet Group PLC.
