[51544] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: AT&T NYC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert A. Hayden)
Thu Aug 29 15:56:59 2002
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 14:53:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: "Robert A. Hayden" <rhayden@geek.net>
To: Michael Hallgren <m.hallgren@free.fr>
Cc: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>,
Peter van Dijk <peter@dataloss.nl>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <JBEOJEDCAPIHIIHLGKINKEKDCLAA.m.hallgren@free.fr>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Yup. I like using OSPF to set up the mesh to the loopbacks and then ibgp
as the IGP.
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Michael Hallgren wrote:
> >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
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
