[nsp] ospf default routes and bgp injection

[Nick Kraal]

Thank Oli for your reply. Will add this in my list.

-nick/


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Oliver Boehmer (oboehmer)" <oboehmer at cisco.com>
To: "Nick Kraal" <nick at arc.net.my>; <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 2:22 PM
Subject: RE: [nsp] ospf default routes and bgp injection


> Nick,
> 
> I think it really depends on what you want to achieve and wich IGP
> you're using. As general arguments:
> 
> 1) customer routes in IGP don't scale. While OSPF/ISIS on modern
> platforms (RISC CPU's) works just fine with 5000+ routes in your IGP,
> scaling to 10000 and above might be a challenge
> 
> 2) The more routes you carry in your IGP, the longer PRC takes
> installing the routes in your RIB. This will be in issue if you want to
> tune your IGP for faster (i.e. sub-second) convergence
> 
> I think one can find addtl. arguments if your specific network and
> routing topology is taken into account.
> 
> oli
> 
> ----Original Message----
> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net] On Behalf Of Nick Kraal
> Sent: Dienstag, 6. April 2004 14:45 To: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> Subject: Re: [nsp] ospf default routes and bgp injection
> 
> > 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/
> > > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/