[51561] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T NYC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (William Waites)
Thu Aug 29 17:31:54 2002
To: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
From: William Waites <ww@styx.org>
Date: 29 Aug 2002 17:30:30 -0400
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0208291700040.25463-100000@cpu1693.adsl.bellglobal.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>>> "Ralph" == Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com> writes:
Ralph> I think we're both confused now. Your example seems to
Ralph> have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I'm
Ralph> currently using an iBGP mesh in my network, with no OSPF or
Ralph> IS-IS. In other words I have internal routers not
Ralph> connected to external peers that are running iBGP.
Ralph> Specifically I have 2 routers that are ruinning EBGP and
Ralph> iBGP, and 2 routers that are running iBGP only. Now that
Ralph> I'm adding a 5th router to my network, I'm considering
Ralph> running OSPF for my IGP. I would still run iBGP between my
Ralph> 2 peering routers, as well as EBGP to my peers.
Ralph, there is nothing wrong with doing that. Just make sure that you
don't have any routers without full tables in your transit path --
i.e. between your two peering routers -- and it will be fine as
long as you don't do anything wacky like redistributing BGP routes
into OSPF. Be careful with redistributing in the other direction
also.
There's no problem. It won't ruin anything. It is a pretty standard
setup.
Cheers,
-w
