[53401] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: disconnected autonomous systems
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Golding)
Wed Nov 13 16:05:01 2002
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:04:29 -0600 (CST)
From: Daniel Golding <dgold@FDFNet.Net>
To: "Stephen J. Wilcox" <steve@telecomplete.co.uk>
Cc: Ralph Doncaster <ralph@istop.com>, <nanog@merit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0211132037160.14614-100000@MrServer>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
I suppose that depends on how many static routes you would need, and how
many routers you would have to touch.
If you have 10 sites like this, and add or remove several blocks every day
(an extreme, of course), then you could end up manipulating many statics
on numerous routers, which, aside from being a waste of engineer time, can
lead to fat-finger mistakes.
Since when did default routing become bad form, on a transit-buying
network?
- Daniel Golding
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Stephen J. Wilcox wrote:
> > Of course, it required you to point default routes out your upstreams, as
> > you will not see the prefixes from one discontiguous island, in another,
> > thanks to BGP loop detection.
>
> ouch. bad practice defaulting like that, however to static route your individual
> blocks wouldnt be a problem
>
>
