>
> 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?
Personally, I always thought that smart networking was about choosing
the road more traveled - as opposed to the good 'ol saying, "choose the
road less traveled" when making general life decisions. And in this
case, extensively more traveled.
Picking, or staying with (in your case), a routing protocol in which you
already have expertise usually turns out the to be the most intelligent
choice, imho.
Thanks,
Chris
>
> 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