[nsp] ospf default routes and bgp injection

[Nick Kraal]

Following up on this one. We all know that the IGP of choice used should
carry only infrastructure networks and kept as small as possible. The rest
should be announced via iBGP. Is there a document that explains this
rationale clear --having some difficulty convincing some folks.

Thanks in advance,

-nick/

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gert Doering" <gert at greenie.muc.de>
To: "Christopher J. Wolff" <chris at bblabs.com>
Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 5:49 AM
Subject: Re: [nsp] ospf default routes and bgp injection


> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 09:58:12AM -0700, Christopher J. Wolff wrote:
> > I've considered ibgp as an end-to-end solution however never went so far
as
> > to implement it.
>
> Completely overkill in this network.  If there's no BGP speaker "down the
> road", there is not much use in having all those routers actually carry
> BGP information.
>
> > My concern is making sure that the entire routing table
> > isn't propagated all the way to the edge device, which could be
something
> > minimal like a 2611XM.  Any thoughts?  Thank you for your advice.
>
> Have the BGP speakers distribute an OSPF (or EIGRP, or even RIP :) )
> default route to the smaller boxes.
>
> gert
> -- 
> USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
>
//www.muc.de/~gert/
> Gert Doering - Munich, Germany
gert at greenie.muc.de
> fax: +49-89-35655025
gert at net.informatik.tu-muenchen.de
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
>