Hi, looks like I opened quite a can of worms, here … :-) Thanks to everybody for the valuable input.
Am 10.12.2013 um 10:19 schrieb Nick Hilliard <n...@foobar.org>: > On 10/12/2013 08:42, Patrick M. Hausen wrote: >> I’ve been doing OSPF for quite some years and IMHO this is a perfectly valid >> and >> sane way to run an ISP with subscriber lines. And I know more than one >> competitor >> (friendly competition ;-) doing exactly the same. > > Why don't you use ibgp for this instead of filling your igp up with stuff > it doesn't need? Keep your IGP small - all the bloat belongs in bgp. I must admit, the thought never occured to me up until now. That’s what I thought IGPs were for. Use BGP to talk to your upstream, use a suitable link state IGP for your own network. Any hints/documents/links for starters? For example one question that immediately springs up: I have two redundant systems capable of running full tables. Both have links to upstreams plus an iBGP connection. I have additional routers with less memory and CPU that run subscriber lines and (currently) OSPF, later IS-IS as far as my planning goes. 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? Kind regards Patrick -- punkt.de GmbH * Kaiserallee 13a * 76133 Karlsruhe Tel. 0721 9109 0 * Fax 0721 9109 100 i...@punkt.de http://www.punkt.de Gf: Jürgen Egeling AG Mannheim 108285
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list cisco-nsp@puck.nether.net https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
