Why use a four-letter routing protocol when you can use a three-letter one?
If you're plannning on talking BGP to the world and at multiple point
within your network, consider using iBGP as your iGP?
It's not 100% automatic, but it is standard and just about everything
is very explicit and controllable, debugging is relatively easy, just
about everything can be displayed with "show" commands, and you can
turn on debugging for a play-by-play.
NO MYSTERIES!
George
> From cisco-nsp-request@puck.nether.net Tue Jun 12 23:00:54 2001
> Resent-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 23:00:49 -0400
> Received-Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:58:38 -0400
> Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001 22:58:28 -0400 (EDT)
> From: <jlewis@lewis.org>
> X-Sender: <jlewis@redhat1.mmaero.com>
> To: "Martin, Christian" <cmartin@gnilink.net>
> cc: "'Chris Davis'" <chris.davis@computerjobs.com>,
> <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net>
> Subject: RE: [nsp] how to fool the SPF in OSPF?
> In-Reply-To: <94B9091E1149D411A45C00508BACEB359CDBC7@entmail.gnilink.com>
> Resent-From: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> X-Mailing-List: <cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net> archive/latest/6792
> X-Loop: cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net
> Precedence: list
> Resent-Sender: cisco-nsp-request@puck.nether.net
>
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2001, Martin, Christian wrote:
>
> > This bit me a while back. I was trying to build a nice, "scalable",
> > multi-area network. The reasoning was that it was world-wide, with some
> > slot routers and WAN links. Enterprise networks are always painful in the
> > end when trying to engineer isp-like ideas into them...
>
> Our network's not _that_ big, though it does span several states. It's
> basically currently a star-like layout with one central point connecting
> to the internet and lots of spokes going out to POPs...some of which are
> actually chains or trees of POPs. i.e. grossly simplified with lots of
> spokes omited:
>
> POPa POPf
> | /
> POPb---center---POPc---POPd---POPe
> / | \ \
> internet POPg
>
> Things are interconnected with a mix of T1's and T3's. Having all our
> transit in one place has kept things relatively simple, but we will
> eventually be adding transit at multiple points, at which point it's kind
> of hard to define a center. We already have private peering at POPs other
> than the center. I like OSPF since it's an open standard and supported by
> lots of vendors. From what I've heard, it sounds like most of the larger
> networks run ISIS rather than OSPF. Is it time to start looking into
> switching?
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Lewis *jlewis@lewis.org*| I route
> System Administrator | therefore you are
> Atlantic Net |
> _________ http://www.lewis.org/~jlewis/pgp for PGP public key_________
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:12:41 EDT