[47765] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: BGP and aggregation
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ralph Doncaster)
Sun May 12 22:57:32 2002
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:57:42 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
To: PS <pschultz@pschultz.com>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205121642210.4190-100000@elvis.kravshera.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0205122255430.9713-100000@cpu1693.adsl.bellglobal.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> > isn't a problem don't worry about it. If you wish to preserve
> > connectivity between cities you should have a back-up link or use
> > different as's or gre tunnels:).
>
> Floating statics would be a less-hassle means to continue connectivity
> (with only 2 locations not much of a scaling issue). Or, if you want, a
> default route (learned via BGP if possible) going to your upstream(s). An
> IBGP session sharing full routing information might not be something you
> want to keep established over a GRE tunnel.
Hmm... the default route idea sounds even easier than my iBGP over a
transit link. I think I'll try your idea first.
-Ralph
