[c-nsp] question about service provider network design

[Nathan]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Adam Armstrong <lists at memetic.org> wrote:
>
> Well, the switches aren't important here, so if you plan to do ipv6 in the future and aren't a huge ospf fan,
> have a look at isis now and switch if you like it. It's definitely a lot easier to manage and troubleshoot. Not
> to mention not having to run two versions of ospf when you want to do ipv6!

OK noted, that could be important.

> Second option is the sensible one. Think of it as building 2 core layer 2 domains across witch all of the PEs
> can talk to eachother. During normal operation, they balance across the two domains, when a switch or
> link dies, the traffic goes across the other. It's a relatively standard design.

The "relatively standard" was what I was looking for :-)

> Well, tune your IGP so that it notices as quickly as possible and pulls down the link.
>
> You want as few routes as possible in IGP (so just links and loopbacks), but i guess you already knew that! :)

It's not stressed enough in docs about setting up iBGP and MP-BGP,
unfortunately, but yes I did learn that later on :-/

Thanks,
-- 
Nathan