[52567] in North American Network Operators' Group
RE: redistribute bgp considered harmful
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Andrew.McConnell@sungard.com)
Fri Oct 4 18:25:12 2002
From: Andrew.McConnell@sungard.com
To: nanog@merit.edu
Date: Fri, 4 Oct 2002 18:19:14 -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Let's not forget about the use of VRF's. BGP is not used exclusively for
sending public routes in our network. Just a thought.
--
Andrew McConnell
Network Implementation Engineer
SunGard Network Technologies
401 North Broad St
Philadelphia, PA 19108
Charles Youse
<cyouse@register. To: 'Sean Donelan' <sean@donelan.com>, nanog@merit.edu
com> cc:
Sent by: Subject: RE: redistribute bgp considered harmful
owner-nanog@merit
.edu
10/04/2002 06:09
PM
I've never subscribed to the "Are you sure?" concept, or preventing
problems
by removing functionality, effectively tying an operator's hands behind
his/her back. The fact is that redistributing BGP into an IGP can have its
uses (though not usually, okay, never, when carrying a full table on the
public Internet) and I'd hate to see the messy workarounds that would come
about, when the solution could otherwise be straightforward.
My Windows workstation asks me "Are you sure?" all the time. Just
annoying,
really.
C.
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Donelan [mailto:sean@donelan.com]
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 6:01 PM
To: nanog@merit.edu
Subject: redistribute bgp considered harmful
Should the Service Provider version of routing software include the
redistribute bgp command? Other than CCIE labs, I haven't seen a
real-world use for redistributing the BGP route table into any IGP.
If the command was removed (or included a Are your sure? question) what
would the affect be on ISPs, other than improving reliability by
stopping network engineers from fubaring a backbone?
