> > > > > > > > > > Has anybody mentioned the benefits of ISIS as an IGP to them. > > > > > > > > > > Link-state protocols are evil, and when they break, they *really* break. > > > > > I still do not see a compeling argument for not using BGP as your IGP. > > > > > > Convergence time? > > > > What is better - relatively long convergence time on affected routes or a > > problem on unaffected route? > > > > Ask your customers. They do not care if someone else is having a problem. > > They care that they dont. > > Do you run a decent sized network?
No, I have never touched a router in my life. > Convergence time in the order of that taken by BGP is not acceptable, > things go crazy when traffic pours in and theres no routes to carry it. This is a great blanked statement. What is convergence time? > Other example, what about static dialup users, they dial up and wait a few > minutes whilst their route is installed throughout BGP?? That is why their route is *nailed* via BGP to the router that *always* provide connectivity to them. If they have to move, BGP injectors are your friends. Takes seconds. > > > > With link-state, one interface flap can mean doing SPF on every route. > > > > If "every route" is only a couple hundred, rather than 100K, you fare > > > > > > As you say disable synchronization and try and control the physical reach of > > > your igp by some mechanism.. areas, summaries, ASes etc > > > > Which is exactly what you are doing when you inject nailed routes into bgp. > > No its not? I'm suggesting some level of order can help control the number of > routers required to reconverge a network, I dont see the comparison with > inserting routes in BGP which is how the routes get in not how they converge. If you dont have a network wide meltdown due to IGP failure you wont need to wait for entire network to come up. It is timing of discrete events. Isn't math grand. Alex
