[51559] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: AT&T NYC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ralph Doncaster)
Thu Aug 29 17:10:37 2002
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 17:10:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
To: Derek Samford <dsamford@fastduck.net>
Cc: "'Robert A. Hayden'" <rhayden@geek.net>,
'Michael Hallgren' <m.hallgren@free.fr>,
'Peter van Dijk' <peter@dataloss.nl>,
"nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <001e01c24f9d$78ef8ca0$5201a8c0@server>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Thu, 29 Aug 2002, Derek Samford wrote:
> Ralph,
> Okay, no one ever said an IBGP mesh was bad. We were all upset
> by the mention of an IGP distributed into an EGP.
Derek,
I think we're both confused now. Your example seems to have nothing to do
with what I'm talking about. I'm currently using an iBGP mesh in my
network, with no OSPF or IS-IS. In other words I have internal routers
not connected to external peers that are running iBGP. Specifically I
have 2 routers that are ruinning EBGP and iBGP, and 2 routers that are
running iBGP only. Now that I'm adding a 5th router to my network, I'm
considering running OSPF for my IGP. I would still run iBGP between my 2
peering routers, as well as EBGP to my peers.
Now if there really is something horrible about that, and someone will
politely explain it to me, I'll happily take the dunce cap and sit in the
corner for 5 minutes.
-Ralph
