[52383] in North American Network Operators' Group

home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post

Re: layer 3 switch debate

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Fri Sep 27 17:56:33 2002

Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 23:55:48 +0200 (CEST)
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: Richard A Steenbergen <ras@e-gerbil.net>
Cc: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@opaltelecom.co.uk>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20020927175952.GI1986@overlord.e-gerbil.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu


On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Richard A Steenbergen wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 27, 2002 at 11:28:39AM +0200, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

> > Core routers typically don't do any filtering and the BGP setup (if any)
> > is straightforward, so switch-like routers are good here.

> May god have mercy on your core.

Thank you. But what exactly necessitates devine leniency?

You aren't taking my remarks to mean that it's a good idea to redistribute
a full BGP view into an IGP, are you? What I'm getting at is a small setup
where all transit and peering links are in the same location. The border
routers at this location can inject a default into the IGP so the number
of routes in the non-border routers stays nice and small.


home help back first fref pref prev next nref lref last post