[47739] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP and aggregation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ralph Doncaster)
Sat May 11 18:15:21 2002
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 18:15:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
To: "E.B. Dreger" <eddy+public+spam@noc.everquick.net>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.20.0205112152090.10575-100000@www.everquick.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0205111813280.11415-100000@cpu1693.adsl.bellglobal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> * BGP is an EGP, not an IGP
> * You might want to check out OSPF if you think your net will
> grow
Using iBGP between the 2 cities right now. May try OSPF later.
> * You don't want your IGP influencing your EGP. Flap, flap.
> * Redistributing EGP into IGP isn't exactly good, either.
>
> Are the upstreams the same in each city? Why not announce the
> aggregate /20 normally, and set NO_REDISTRIBUTE and use MEDs on
> the /21s? You're paying for transit, so MEDs are fair game.
Well, the assumption is that most of the time the circuit between the 2
cities will be up, so flapping should be rare. The transit is from
different providers, so only announcing the /20 won't do the trick.
-Ralph
