[51538] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: AT&T NYC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Hallgren)
Thu Aug 29 15:34:20 2002
Reply-To: <m.hallgren@free.fr>
From: "Michael Hallgren" <m.hallgren@free.fr>
To: "Richard A Steenbergen" <ras@e-gerbil.net>,
"Ralph Doncaster" <ralph@istop.com>
Cc: "Peter van Dijk" <peter@dataloss.nl>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:31:10 +0200
In-Reply-To: <20020829192235.GL53265@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
> >
> > > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 01:09:54PM -0400, alex@yuriev.com wrote:
> > > > > Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them.
> > > > Link-state protocols are evil, and when they break, they *really*
break.
> > > > I still do not see a compeling argument for not using BGP as your
IGP.
> > >
> > > Slow convergence.
> >
> > As well there is the issues of running a full iBGP mesh. I've actually
> > been doing it, and now that I'm about to add my 5th router, OSPF is
> > looking a lot better than configuring 4 more BGP sessions. I've heard
> > some people recommend a route-reflector, but that would mean if the
> > route-reflector goes down you're screwed.
What about a well choosen (wrt topo) pair of them...
>
> Planning on doing away with that pesky IBGP mesh and just redistributing
> BGP into OSPF are we Ralph?
>
> There is so much wrong with the above post that I can't do anything
> except hang my head in shame for people running networks everywhere
> around the world.
>
mh
> --
> Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net> http://www.e-gerbil.net/ras
> PGP Key ID: 0x138EA177 (67 29 D7 BC E8 18 3E DA B2 46 B3 D8 14 36 FE B6)
