[51620] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T NYC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (alex@yuriev.com)
Mon Sep 2 16:01:37 2002
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 16:00:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: alex@yuriev.com
To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk>
Cc: bdragon@gweep.net, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0209021858310.9552-100000@staff.opaltelecom.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>
> >
> > > > 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.
>
> Convergence time?
What is better - relatively long convergence time on affected routes or a
problem on unaffected route?
Ask your customers. They do not care if someone else is having a problem.
They care that they dont.
> > With link-state, one interface flap can mean doing SPF on every route.
> > If "every route" is only a couple hundred, rather than 100K, you fare
>
> As you say disable synchronization and try and control the physical reach of
> your igp by some mechanism.. areas, summaries, ASes etc
Which is exactly what you are doing when you inject nailed routes into bgp.
So, why do you need IGP such as OSPF again?
Alex
