Thanks for the replies. We don't really have anything that I would
consider unstable. Mostly ATM or GigE over our own fiber on campus. We
have a few T1's to remote sites but most of these don't run any routing
protocol anyway as they only have one network behind them.
Just out of curiosity is the reason you recommend confederated BGP so
that the routes can be dampened across these unstable links?
Jay
"Robert E. Seastrom" wrote:
>
> "Ryan O'Connell" <ryan@complicity.co.uk> writes:
>
> > As long as the links in the area are relatively stable, this isn't a problem
> > at all. If there are unstable links such as Satellite or Microwave links or
> > long-distance WAN links prone to failure, it may make be worth moving
> > them into a seperate area however.
>
> My $0.02: If you have a network big enough to profit from being broken
> up (and I agree with Ryan's thoughts about the decision criteria), you
> will be happier with confederated BGP (running OSPF within each
> pseudo-AS) than you will with multiarea OSPF.
>
> ---Rob
-- Jay Young |Office of Information Technology Network Engineer |The Ohio State University Phone: (614) 292-7350 |1971 Neil Ave. (SE 480F) Fax: (614) 292-7081 |Columbus, OH 43210
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:19 EDT