On 25/Jan/16 20:13, Joe Maimon wrote:
Maybe not for some people, but I have a hard time understanding why one extra ebgp session is such a novel concept for all you networking folk.
It's not that novel - I share my view of the Internet with various industry initiatives this way. But for a commercial service, the decoupling between the state of the physical link and the control plane in this case creates an opportunity for various forwarding issues that are avoidable. The BFD argument could be made, but it is not yet a basic feature one can expect with one's customers.
They sell those routers at your nearest staples, they require zero commands.
No Staples this side of the world...
I know you know better. What does this have to do with tunnels? Or how centralized your network is built or not?
Not everyone has the luxury of carrying a full table at the edge, for various reasons, and I get that (even though in 2016, selective BGP FIB downloads is a reality). But if you can avoid it, determining one or two boxes in your core that are your full BGP table reference puts a great deal of burden on those devices to run and maintain routability for and within your network. If I had the ability not to do this, I would, despite how sexy eBGP Multi-Hop might be. Mark.