[51589] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: AT&T NYC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (alex@yuriev.com)
Fri Aug 30 12:34:58 2002
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:33:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: alex@yuriev.com
To: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Cc: "nanog@merit.edu" <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20020830145153.A80168-100000@sequoia.muada.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
> On Fri, 30 Aug 2002 alex@yuriev.com wrote:
>
> > > I would definately not recommend route reflection or a confederation in a
> > > network with such a small number of BGP routers:
>
> > In spirit of the above, I suggest you also do not have maintenance window,
> > forget about re-checking configs, enable to do the simpliest commands, and
> > of course let everyone try debugging any problems by typing random commands
> > into your routers. After all, your network consists of only 4 routers.
>
> Ok, but how is _not_ using route reflection or a confederation similar to
> the above???
I fail to see how using confederations makes it complicated. In fact, should
a network consist of two or above pops, and has more than one exit point,
confederations are an excellent way to give one ability to fine tune traffic
distribution.
Alex
