[c-nsp] C6500 IPv6 redistribute with route-map?
Gert Doering
gert at greenie.muc.de
Wed Dec 11 13:12:44 EST 2013
Hi,
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:43:28AM +0000, Nick Hilliard wrote:
> On 10/12/2013 09:31, Patrick M. Hausen wrote:
> > How can I connect them to the iBGP without them carrying full tables?
> > Route-maps for the neighbor definitions? Is that really all it takes?
> >
> > And OTOH again - why would I not want to carry < 100 LSAs in my IGP?
>
> if it's 100 LSAs, there's not going to be much practical difference between
> the two.
>
> If you want to do it with BGP, I'd recommend setting up a couple of VMs to
> act as route reflectors (with e.g. bird or quagga or something) and
> creating a very simple BGP community policy: tag your transit prefixes,
> your peering prefixes and your internal prefixes using different community
> values. Then you can use the route reflectors to control how the prefixes
> are distributed around your network. It's a small amount of work, but it's
> an approach that scales well in practice.
I don't think I'd ever recommend that, except to a competitor.
Having a few 100 external(!) LSAs in an IGP won't make any of them sweat,
not even a stone-age cisco IOS 11.0 OSPF implementation on a 2500.
OTOH, introducing more complexity by bringing in extra routing intelligence,
*and* putting these into a VM (aka "your VM infrastructure has a hickup,
all your network is down, have fun bringing it back up") is...
Nick, you've been doing IXPs for too long. This is not good for you.
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 305 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/attachments/20131211/70be4cfb/attachment.sig>
More information about the cisco-nsp
mailing list