[c-nsp] IP SLA?

[Dan Brisson]

On 3/29/15 12:46 AM, Mark Tinka wrote:
>
>
> On 29/Mar/15 05:12, Dan Brisson wrote:
>>
>> Labbing this up, OSPF makes the default route advertisement much easier:
>>
>> router ospf 160
>>  network 192.168.10.1 0.0.0.3 area 0
>>  default-information originate always
>>
>> Downsides of OSPF vs. EIGRP in this scenario?
>
> I just think it's a terrible idea running an IGP with a customer.
>
> I mean, I see the benefit from a link failure detection point of view, 
> but an IGP is still an IGP - and that "I" stands for Interior.
>
> Do you know what hardware/software the customer is running?
>
> Mark.
I'm waiting to hear what the customer has for hardware/software, 
although in that this is a Co-lo environment, it would be nice to have a 
standard method for dual-connecting customers at Layer 3 when the next 
one requests it.   That's what scares me about static routes+BFD.

So while I hear you re: running an IGP with a customer, I think/hope 
that using Gert's suggestions of separate process ID and good filtering 
in place, I can achieve what I need.  And, it's better than doing 
Spanning Tree with the customer.

-dan