[51651] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T NYC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Tue Sep 3 14:05:26 2002
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 20:04:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: <bdragon@gweep.net>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20020903174135.51768.qmail@sidehack.sat.gweep.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Tue, 3 Sep 2002 bdragon@gweep.net wrote:
> So, are you saying:
> 4) something else?
I think what Alex is trying to say is pretty much make every router a
confederation sub-AS of its own. That way, you never talk BGP with a
router you're not directly connected to, so you don't need loopback routes
to find BGP peers. If you then configure next-hop-self on every session,
you don't need "redistribute connected" either so you've eliminated the
need for an IGP.
> And that:
> you don't use "closest-exit" at all, but haul traffic, wherever, around
> your network based upon steps below the igp-metric step in the bgp decision
> tree?
That's the part I can't figure out without some lab time either, but
obviously you can tweak this setup to _statically_ do whatever it is you
need, the only question is what happens when something goes down.
> I'm sorry, but so far, I'm not buying how a static net is better.
"No IGP" doesn't mean "static", "no IGP" really means "no IGP". :-)
