OSPF vs IS-IS vs PrivateAS eBGP

Gary T. Giesen giesen at snickers.org
Thu Aug 20 18:44:18 CDT 2009


I think you misunderstood me. You definitely need prefix filters on
the *provider* side, but the CPE doesn't necessarily need them as the
impact is hopefully limited to that particular customer. They're
always better of course.

GG

On 8/20/09, Daniel Roesen <dr at cluenet.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 08:47:14AM -0500, Clue Store wrote:
>> 99% of all of our customer CPE is not managed by the customer, so that
>> leaves it up to me to decide what to run to them.
>
> And then you run into the customer who thinks it's better to use a CPE
> of his own, breaks into the CPE to read your config and hooks up his own
> device with his own config... and suddenly you have Problems[tm].
>
> I've seen it happening, more than once.
>
>> The only issue with using
>> ebgp is getting enough of my staff that actually understand bgp  to the
>> point where they can deploy it themselves without having to get me
>> involved
>> on every install.
>
> Am I alone in my view that BGP is _far_ more simple and straight-forward
> than OSPF (except in salary negotiations of course *G*)? Especially if
> you leave "plain simple area 0". Or if you have to protect from external
> parties. With BGP prefix-filtering, things are easy and obvious.
>
>> We are moving to a new NOC so this network will get a fresh start (new
>> 7513-sup720, few m10i's, and a dozen or so 7200vxr's). So my deployment
>> strategy will be ebgp with multihmed customers. I just had to poke the
>> fire
>> so I had some ammo for upper management when they ask why I decide to go
>> ebgp.
>
> :-)
>
>
> Best regards,
> Daniel
>
> --
> CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
>
>




More information about the NANOG mailing list