On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 01:28:08AM +0000, Lupi, Guy wrote:
  I had a feeling that would happen, I will try to clarify.  I was not trying
  to say that there should be a central core site for the ISP's entire
  network, but for pieces of it.  Lets take a state like New York, within it
  you have 3 POPs, each is in it's own AS and runs an IGP.  In each POP you
  have 2 core routers and 3 aggregation routers, the 2 core routers have EBGP
  connections and are reflectors for the 3 aggregation routers.  Now you want
  all 4 POPs to be in the same AS, and they have to have direct connectivity
  to your 3 New Jersey POPs which should also be in the same AS.  In that
  case, would it make sense to choose a NY POP and a NJ POP, install 2 core
or
  backbone routers that do not participate in any IGP, use those to peer with
  the POPs in that state and in turn peer with the other state's core or
  backbone routers?  This would significantly reduce the amount of peering
  that would be required. Hopefully the drawing won't be a disaster.
  
            NY POP 1                               NJ POP 1
              o  o                                   o  o
              o                                         o
              o  o                                   o  o
  
            NY POP 2                               NJ POP 2
              o  o       o-------------------o       o  o
              o                   \ /                   o
              o  o                / \                o  o
                         o-------------------o       
  
            NY POP 3                               NJ POP 3
              o  o                                   o  o
              o                                         o
              o  o                                   o  o
  
 
Are you suggesting seperate per-pop AS's as a result of
confederations, or otherwise?  Confederations will certainly work, but
may be overkill for a 6 pop regional network.

I would suggest a single externally visible AS with a unified IGP.  IGP
convergence time is much preferrable to BGP convergence time.  Also, BGP
is better suited for political/administrative division, which shouldn't
be necessary between the two regional networks.

Also, when you say "...reduce the amount of peering...", are you
referring to the number of ibgp sessions, external peering arrangements,
or transit connections?

--phil




Message Posted at:
http://www.groupstudy.com/form/read.php?f=7&i=48569&t=48509
--------------------------------------------------
FAQ, list archives, and subscription info: http://www.groupstudy.com/list/cisco.html
Report misconduct and Nondisclosure violations to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to