I forgot to mention putting it all into area 0...
But that isnt the purpose of this message.... the purpose of this message is
to tell everyone that i am putting this scenario together in my lab at home,
and everyone is invited
to come help. NOT EVERYONE WILL HAVE ENABLE.
but feel free to log on, and remember that the boxes are only running plus,
so max is five people logged in.
my name is humboldt.ws / ofa.sh.
the public login is
groupstudy / groupstudy
there is a 3640, a 4000, and a crapload of 2500s
all capable of doing BGP =) (AND OSPF)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Van Oene"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
> As Alan correctly points out, path cost is irrelevant in this case as
intra
> area routers will be preferred over inter.
>
>
> >> We
> >> tend to think that a small network could not be better served by
> >> applying the same principles that we might use for a larger
> >> environment. Why is that? Instead of letting the number of devices
> >> determine the right solution (Or more properly, a good solution),
> >> let's form a solution based on the specific requirements.
> >>
> >> A network with a small number of devices, but consisting of multiple
> >> sites, and redundant links, presents a unique challenge. Forget the
> >> number of devices, and look at both the physical topology, and the
> >> problem that needs solving. BGPs powerful policy routing tools make
> >> it a good fit for this environment, when viewed from a requirements
> >> perspective.
> >
> >I think BGP is completely unecessary in this case.YES, splitting it into
> >two
> >ASes ans using eBGP would work (well), but i really think that modifying
> >the
> >path cost would be the right solution.
> >remember that i never said eBGP wouldnt work. the initial discussion was
> >about using BGP to do this in a SINGLE AS.
> >
> >...don't get all in a tizzy, i recognize that you have a good idea.
> >I just don't like it =P
> >
> >/me ducks
> >
> >>
> >> It's not the only solution, but it is a valid solution, and in my
> >> opinion, it's a good solution.
> >>
> >> Alan
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Peter I. Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist"
> >> To: "W. Alan Robertson" ;
> >>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 1:02 PM
> >> Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
> >>
> >>
> >> > Absolutely, but he has traffic going from one router to another,
> >> it's not
> >> > ever exiting the system.
> >> > ...why would you want to break up an AS that small into two seperate
> >> private
> >> > ASes?
> >> > besides... the OSPF routes are going to take precedence, not that
> >> the admin
> >> > dist. cant be changed, but ospf is 120, and BGP int routes are
> >> 200....
> >> > (right?)
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "W. Alan Robertson"
> >> > To: "Peter I. Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist" ;
> >> >
> >> > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 12:42 PM
> >> > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > > Peter,
> >> > >
> >> > > With all due respect, he doesn't have an IGP problem... He has a
> >> > > routing problem, and would like the ability to influence the flow
> >> of
> >> > > traffic under certain circumstances to provide for better network
> >> > > performance.
> >> > >
> >> > > After hearing a better explanation of the real issue, path
> >> selection
> >> > > for an International site, the use of BGP might go a long way
> >> toward
> >> > > solving the issue.
> >> > >
> >> > > He could very simply address his issues by breaking his OSPF into
> >> two
> >> > > seperate routing domains, and utilizing BGP as a means of
> >> > > interconnecting them. He could manipulate the traffic through the
> >> use
> >> > > of something as simple as AS-path prepending, or the other
> >> mechanisms
> >> > > Chuck mentioned (local preference, weight, or meds).
> >> > >
> >> > > Routing protocols are but tools, a simple means to an end. Like
> >> all
> >> > > tools, each has it's strengths and weaknesses. Most important is
> >> that
> >> > > you select the right one for a given situation. In the absence of
> >> > > more information, the use of BGP sounds like a pretty good
> >> solution to
> >> > > the given problem.
> >> > >
> >> > > Alan
> >> > >
> >> > > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > > From: "Peter I. Slow, CCNP Voice Specialist"
> >>
> >> > > To:
> >> > > Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2001 11:29 AM
> >> > > Subject: Re: Wanna Be a CCIE? Try This One [7:6076]
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > > next time you recomend using bgp to fix an IGP problem, im going
> >> > > to.., well,
> >> > > > uh, just dont do it again.
> >FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
> >http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> >Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> FAQ, list archives, and subscription info:
http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
> Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=6456&t=6076
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
