[4926] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Need hints on proper default route selection
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alan Hannan)
Wed Oct 2 14:11:21 1996
To: generous@uucom.com (Curtis Generous)
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 1996 12:59:24 -0500 (CDT)
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199610021735.NAA01818@rolex.uucom.com> from "Curtis Generous" at Oct 2, 96 01:35:46 pm
From: alan@mindvision.com (Alan Hannan)
Reply-To: alan@mindvision.com (Alan Hannan)
Hi Curtis,
> The problem we have been experiencing now is that both NSP #1 and NSP
> #2 have been undergoing some major internal restructuring, causing
> daily change/loss of candidate net annoucements, or change in
> aggregation boundaries, etc..... making it a daily exercise at
> selecting proper candidate route selection.
> Can anyone provide an alternate or better strategy on how to deal with this?
It would seem that NSP A and B would have some relatively static
networks that they could tell you about. Perhaps their noc lan or
web farm addressing. I realize this is rather a simple-ish fix,
but you may wish to visit with some intelligent folk at the NSP to
determine what these are. I would question if there is
renumbering/announcement changes, or if they are having "BGP
configuration problems".
Another solution, with some, but less, negative ramifications,
would be to select 2 or 3 networks within each NSP. Not a great
fix, but a simple one to look at.
A final solution would be to buy a 4700 w/ 64M of ram. You should
be able to handle full tables from 2 peers along w/ all your IGP
on this box. The port cost is not exceedingly high, and if you
can afford the capital outlay, it sounds like it would be a rather
good mediumish solution.
Obviously the primary recommendation would be to "fix" the netedge
problem, but I assume you're pursuing that. The fact that your
NSP is rather unstable is also a negative, but you can only do so
much (before you leave them hint hint)
$0.02
-alan
