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 [email protected]
fax: +49-89-35655025 [email protected]
pgpDRRG6OhhYC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
