[51542] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: AT&T NYC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Michael Hallgren)
Thu Aug 29 15:52:11 2002
Reply-To: <m.hallgren@free.fr>
From: "Michael Hallgren" <m.hallgren@free.fr>
To: "Robert A. Hayden" <rhayden@geek.net>,
"Ralph Doncaster" <ralph@istop.com>
Cc: "Peter van Dijk" <peter@dataloss.nl>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 21:49:33 +0200
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0208291436220.17837-100000@titan.odeon.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>Um. Set up more than one reflector....
yes... and align your setup with your physical topology(so making it
useful);
use other proto for mapping your infra, etc, etc,..
mh
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Ralph Doncaster wrote:
>
> On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Peter van Dijk wrote:
>
> > 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 o 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.
>
> -Ralph
>
>
>
>
