On Sep 12, 2009, at 7:48 AM, Fouant, Stefan wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Cord MacLeod [mailto:cordmacl...@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 9:50 PM
To: North American Network Operators Group
Subject: Re: OSPF vs IS-IS vs PrivateAS eBGP
I'd also add that ISIS supports
> -Original Message-
> From: Cord MacLeod [mailto:cordmacl...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 9:50 PM
> To: North American Network Operators Group
> Subject: Re: OSPF vs IS-IS vs PrivateAS eBGP
>
> I'd also add that ISIS supports IPv6 through the
On Sep 11, 2009, at 6:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
I seem to get the impression that isis is preferred in the core. Any
reasons why folks dont prefer to go with ospf?
a bit harder to attack clnp (is-is) than ip (ospf)
is-is a bit simpler to configure, though you can get a sick as you
want. but d
71.434.5656 ▫ Mobile: +1.202.210.2075 ▫ GPG ID: 0xB5E3803D ▫
stefan.fou...@neustar.biz
- Original Message -
From: Glen Kent
To: Randy Bush
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Sent: Fri Sep 11 20:35:27 2009
Subject: Re: OSPF vs IS-IS vs PrivateAS eBGP
I seem to get the impression that isis is preferred in t
> I seem to get the impression that isis is preferred in the core. Any
> reasons why folks dont prefer to go with ospf?
a bit harder to attack clnp (is-is) than ip (ospf)
is-is a bit simpler to configure, though you can get a sick as you
want. but don't.
a bit simpler to code, so worked and was
I seem to get the impression that isis is preferred in the core. Any
reasons why folks dont prefer to go with ospf?
Glen
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> Unless you want your customers to have very substantial control over
>> your internal network, don't use an SPF IGP like
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 07:56:14PM -0500, Clue Store wrote:
> Most of my staff are still under the impression in Cisco land that the
> "network 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0" statement injects than network into OSPF,
> when it simply turns on OSPF for the interfaces that are in that network.
So most of y
> Configure eBGP from your edge to the client edge using
> private-AS. Since I already have copy/paste templates (thanks
> to RANCID), I make it a habit to ensure filters are at both
> ends. Goes without saying that
> BCP-38 is followed, and strict is deployed everywhere possible.
>
> peer-grou
Clue Store wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Most of my staff are still under the impression in
Cisco land that the "network 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0" statement injects that
network into OSPF, when it simply turns on OSPF for the interfaces that are
in that network. I'm really glad to see Cisco that ma
Gary T. Giesen wrote:
> FWIW, we use BGP to our multihomed customers (even when we manage the
> CPE), using a private AS. OSPF doesn't have the right toolset to
> provide protection for inter-network route propogation, and the risk
> of some customer's CPE screwing up you routing is just too high t
> Am I alone in my view that BGP is _far_ more simple and
> straight-forward than OSPF
>that ospf has become exceedingly complex, and all that results thereof.
I couldn't agree more. Most of my staff are still under the impression in
Cisco land that the "network 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0" statement
> Am I alone in my view that BGP is _far_ more simple and
> straight-forward than OSPF
this is a very telling statement in a number of ways.
that ospf has become exceedingly complex, and all that results thereof.
that both are known for their complexity.
randy
I think you misunderstood me. You definitely need prefix filters on
the *provider* side, but the CPE doesn't necessarily need them as the
impact is hopefully limited to that particular customer. They're
always better of course.
GG
On 8/20/09, Daniel Roesen wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 08:47:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 08:47:14AM -0500, Clue Store wrote:
> 99% of all of our customer CPE is not managed by the customer, so that
> leaves it up to me to decide what to run to them.
And then you run into the customer who thinks it's better to use a CPE
of his own, breaks into the CPE to read yo
FWIW, we use BGP to our multihomed customers (even when we manage the
CPE), using a private AS. OSPF doesn't have the right toolset to
provide protection for inter-network route propogation, and the risk
of some customer's CPE screwing up you routing is just too high to go
naked. A basic CPE BGP co
> The only issue with using ebgp is getting enough of my
> staff that actually understand bgp to the point where they
> can deploy it themselves without having to get me involved on
> every install. I think I can make this pretty cookie-cutter
> config to start off and then work from there.
F
Thanks again for all of the replies on and off list. As I stated earlier, I
didn't not think IGP was the protocol of choice for running to customers,
i've just been to many different houses that do actually do this.
99% of all of our customer CPE is not managed by the customer, so that
leaves it u
Clue Store said the following on 20/8/09 01:12 :
>
> I know this has been discussed probably many times on this list, but I was
> looking for some specifics about what others are doing in the following
> situations.
Discussed on list, presented in tutorials, how much more advice is
actually requir
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 12:58:01PM -0500, Clue Store wrote:
[snip]
> would like to go with , but I have had some in the industry say this is not
> as good as running an IGP with the customer.
Name and shame. TTBOMK, no-one who thought walking that road was a
Good Idea did so for long after start
On Aug 20, 2009, at 7:13 PM, Ivan Pepelnjak wrote:
Do not EVER run an SPF routing protocol with your customer.
I don't generally like 'me, too', posts, but Ivan's advice here cannot
be overstated; this way lies madness.
-
Do not EVER run an SPF routing protocol with your customer. They can insert
anything they want into it (due to configuration mistake, malicious intent
or third-party hijacking) and your whole network (or at least the other
customers) will be affected.
Just to give you a few examples:
* They could
> Unless you want your customers to have very substantial control over
> your internal network, don't use an SPF IGP like ospf or is-is.
with your customer ^
i know that's what you meant, but i thought it worth making it very
explicit.
practice safe
On 19 Aug 2009, at 16:12, Clue Store wrote:
I would like to run an IGP (currently OSPF) to our customers that
are multi-homed in a non-mpls environment. They are multi-homed with
small prefixes that are swipped from my ARIN allocations.
[...]
Customers do, err, interesting and creative thin
> Keep the opinions coming guys.
there are certainly many opinions on this subject. However, the most
important factor is - how flexible you wish to be? As you correctly
point out, this is not an issue of what protocol are you going to be
running inside your network. So, "IGP" is not an issue.
Th
Thanks for all the replies so far. Just to clarify, I am in the small
ISP/Hosted services business. I was fortunate to inherit the current setup
of OSPF to the multi-homed customers. As i stated earlier, I would like to
run an IGP, what I really meant was I would like to run a routing protocol
that
On 19/08/2009 16:12, Clue Store wrote:
I would like to run an IGP (currently OSPF) to our customers that are
multi-homed in a non-mpls environment.
Unless you want your customers to have very substantial control over your
internal network, don't use an SPF IGP like ospf or is-is. You really
Clue Store wrote:
I have also seen others going to private AS and running eBGP. This seems a
bit much, but if it works, i'd make the move to it as I like bgp the most
(all of the BGP knobs give me the warm and fuzzies :).
Upon previous advice I've received from large ISPs, I shifted to ISIS to
Sorry, not OSPFv3. IPv6 thoughts dancing in my head. OSPF-VRF as most of you
probably interpret.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Clue Store wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> I know this has been discussed probably many times on this list, but I was
> looking for some specifics about what others are doing i
28 matches
Mail list logo
