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 their cloud. 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. ---Rob Robert E. Seastrom -- rs@digex.net Network Engineer, Digex International My posting, my opinions, not speaking for the company, etc. etc.