[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       cisco-nsp
Subject:    Re: [c-nsp] OSPF routing question
From:       Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom ! mu>
Date:       2018-07-19 15:02:33
Message-ID: 1d3c950e-fd73-a40e-fca6-89d4836a9f34 () seacom ! mu
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]

[Attachment #4 (multipart/mixed)]


On 18/Jul/18 08:39, Gert Doering wrote:

> If you do this, be aware that every OSPF come-and-go is very likely to lead 
> to a churn in BGP, as metrics change.  This might or might not be a problem,
> but everything that leads to externally visible BGP updates should be
> considered well.

If I could be more stern, "... should be abstracted from the global BGP
table".

What Gert talks about is a real issue, and many of the "bad actors" that
top the Weekly Routing Table Report from APNIC are mainly so because
they redistribute customer routes from their IGP directly into BGP.
Oscillations in one protocol cascades into the other.

The tried, true and tested architecture of using the IGP only for
infrastructure + Loopback routes and iBGP for customer routes is what
I'd suggest you consider moving to.

Mark.

["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
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/


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]