Why Vadim likes statics
Robert E. Seastrom
rs at ss2.digex.net
Mon Apr 24 21:26:41 UTC 1995
> This sounds a lot like the slippery slope of static routing being the
> most stable, so we should encourage its use Internet wide. I -know-
> Karl D.
> (and others that depend on dynamic routing for alternate provider
> fallback) will kick at this.
On the contrary, Bill, being set up to propagate IGP information to your EGP
in situations where not absolutely necessary seems to be a perversion of the
whole intent of EGPs vs. IGPs. Perhaps it's time to rethink for a moment why
the whole Internet isn't just running one big IGRP or OSPF cloud.
Kudos to the people who have realized that for singly-connected networks, the
BGP advert. status of the network should change precisely as often as the
policy (eg. ONCE, when you set the network up, and AGAIN if they change to
another provider). Granted, there are a lot of people who are _not_ singly
connected, but they (folks like Karl D.) are (a) running BGP themselves, and
(b) sophisticated enough to pull up their own networks at the periphery of
The point I'm making is that you shouldn't be BGP peering with customers who
are not multiply attached (that's what IGPs are for), and you should not be
propagating your IGP information to your BGP except in rare cases. Let IGPs
do what they are best at (dynamic information and reachability on a micro
level) and EGPs do what they're best at (reachability and policy on the macro
level) Simple, eh?
By the way, yes, I am biased. I have been saying that this is the only sane
way to do routing adverts to other providers for neigh unto two years now.
-------------- next part --------------
Robert E. Seastrom -- rs at digex.net
Network Engineer, Digex International
My posting, my opinions, not speaking for the company, etc. etc.
More information about the NANOG