[c-nsp] RIP offset lists

[Joe Maimon]

David Barak wrote:

>--- Joe Maimon <jmaimon at ttec.com> wrote:
>
><many very good questions regarding RIP capabiliities
>snipped>
>
>My primary question before delving into solving the
>mysteries is this: are you running RIP between your
>provider network and the customer network, and if so,
>why?
>  
>
Often. Because thats what the customer's gear supports and it happens to 
be trivial to manage for those cases.
What would you run? OSPF? Cisco proprietary EIGRP? BGP?

What routing protocols can you run on a pppoe l2tp VA link that can be 
managed from AAA attrs?

>Assertions:
>If a customer is multihomed, the $40 linksys is no
>longer the appropriate CPE device (clearly multihoming
>is for resiliency, and the linksys is not exactly what
>we'd call "high-availability" ;)
>  
>
Yes but the customer now believes that 2 $40 linksys routers are 
perfectly appropriate. After all, they can reboot them themselves.

Sure I would like to sell them the 1721 but that often as not does not 
happen. If you dont want those customers and I dont want those 
customers, that makes no never mind to management. Its always "can it 
work? Yes? So what if its not the right way? Do it anyways! Its a 
recurring revenue stream!"

The first question a customer asks after hearing what a 1721 with a 
WIC-1E and a WIC-T1 costs (with upgrades to run new IOS with features 
such as firewalling) are "can you do it cheaper with x or y, and if not 
explain it in writing?"

>If a customer is singly-homed, why not statically
>route them?  Let the routing protocol they run be
>exclusive to their network. 
>
Mostly this is what we do.  Sometimes we even do that with two links to 
the same router, but then again thats a cisco thing that makes that work.

> If they're trying to do
>some kind of load-balancing or failover mechanism, get
>them to use something other than Layer-3 resiliency
>(perhaps layer-7 resiliency?)
>  
>
Back to the $$ again. Such as a 1721/2620XM with 12.3(8)T or higher. 
Maybe they could just run a script on every computer that pings google 
and on failure changes their default gateway to their other NAT box, but 
I sure as heck dont want to support that.

>So, while the problems Cisco has with RIPv2 are
>non-trivial, why are they impacting a production
>network?
>  
>
Because of the gear thats in use, mostly the Customers gear which has a 
different budget approval process than mine.

>-David 
>
>=====
>
>  
>
Joe