> > > Just out of curiousity, exactly why are you trying to get rid of the AS on
> > > an EBGP announcement on a Cisco?... If your goal is to set up a
> > > third-party-exchange-point-style-route-server, why not just use RSd? I'm
> > > not sure why you would need to remove the transparency in any other normal
> > > situation.
> >
> > YES: it's an exchange point, and worse, it's spread over four
> > states/cities.
>
> Ahhh....
>
> > RSd is an option, if we deploy FOUR of them, *but* I don't need the
> > bells and whistles...
>
> Hmmm.... You don't have to use all the bells and whistles with RSd (I am
> assuming that you are talking about the creation of the filters based on
> RADB policy, right?) As far as deploying FOUR of them, why would you
> need FOUR?
With one RSd box: the "intermediate" as, the exchange ASN would appear in
routes only for the actual IP ranges of the exchange points, (four in all,)
and then RSd would have to use EBGP multihop sessions to get to the three
remote NAP's for route serving, sounds dangerous: a NAP could loose
routes after a WAN failure.
With FOUR RSd boxen: each NAP has a core router that knows the full four site
table, and provides a gateway to the others, it uses a RR iBGP session to
feed the local RSd with the remote routes, and the local RSd "transmutes"
these aspaths to remove the fake asn used by the exchange (on NON-NAP IP
ranges,) providing all the WAN routes, and getting the aspaths shortened to 1
hop aspaths.... (but will RSd do that?)
(The alternative is to convince each and every participant to hook up a
eBGP session with each other and run like that, a bloody huge farce
considering the level of routeclue{TM})
TERRY
{TM} to AK.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:13 EDT