<div dir="ltr">Matthew,<div><br></div><div>BGP is the right protocol for this.</div><div>Most users should be using dynamic addresses from pools, and the pools should be allocated in ranges to LNSs, and only the pool (as subnet) should be advertised.</div>
<div>The exception would be users with static IPs/routes provisioned through RADIUS, but that should be a minority...</div><div><br></div><div>Arie<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Melbourne <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matt@melbourne.org.uk">matt@melbourne.org.uk</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div lang="EN-GB" link="blue" vlink="purple">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">We are looking to update our LNS configurations to improve
resiliency, by adding LNSes and removing static routing. What do most SPs do in
terms of best practice for advertising customer routes (e.g. single static
addresses, and routed subnets) into their network. I am looking to make my
LNSes BGP RR clients, but am concerned about the churn on the BGP processes as
users disconnect and reconnect - is this an issue in practice (the routers to
which the LNSes ould connect do currently have full routing tables) - but
this has to be preferable to even considering using an IGP for 2000+ prefixes
:-)</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Cheers,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Matt</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">-- </p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Matthew Melbourne</p>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</div>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
cisco-bba mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:cisco-bba@puck.nether.net">cisco-bba@puck.nether.net</a><br>
<a href="https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba" target="_blank">https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-bba</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>