On 25/Jan/16 12:15, Joe Maimon wrote:
> > > No static routes, dedicated BGP routed loopbacks on each side from an > allocated /31, strict definitions on which routes belong to which > session. Its gone about very properly. And all of this is simpler than having a native BGP session that runs across a point-to-point link? > > In my opinion, that setup is a very good example of how and when to > properly take advantage of a BGP feature that has been with us from > the start. My philosophy: if I could run a router with only one command in its configuration, I would. I realize some commands make a router more secure than them being absent (and vice versa), while some commands make a router perform better than them being absent (and vice versa). My point - just because a feature is there, does not mean you have to use it. > > And really, whats wrong with the ability on your side to decide when > and where on your network you will take a full feed of ever expanding > internet routes. On your edge? On a purpose built route server? Personally, I abhor tunnels (and things that resemble them) as well as centralized networking. But that's just me. > > Or do you think the only paths forward for everyone's edges is > continuous forklifting and/or selective filtering? Can't speak for others, just myself. Mark.