[51652] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: AT&T NYC
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (alex@yuriev.com)
Tue Sep 3 14:57:31 2002
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 14:57:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: alex@yuriev.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
> 1) You should have a static route for every bgp next-hop, on every router?
> Including both router loopbacks and EBGP next-hops?
Absolutely not.
> 2) You should have a static route for every router loopback, on every router?
Asolutely not.
> 3) You have lots and lots and lots of iBGP sessions not only across loopbacks
> but between directly-connected interfaces in order to jumpstart the
> "real" ibgp sessions?
Absolutely not.
> 4) something else?
Yes.
> 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?
Nope, we did.
> The only thing that has been clear is that you redistribute statics into
> BGP, which I'm fairly certain most people already do.
Nope, we dont and never did.
> I'm sorry, but so far, I'm not buying how a static net is better. You seem
> to be trading off the complexity of automatically performing SPF, for the
> complexity of manually performing SPF. I'ld certainly hate to be in your
> Ops group when a particular path fails, requiring someone to sit with pad
> and paper and recompute SPF, by hand, for a hundred routers. On the
> up-side, the original failure might be fixed by the time the computation
> is about 50% complete.
Again, there is no static net.
Alex
